Posted on 09/22/2003 7:40:19 AM PDT by presidio9
You clearly know nothing of my life growing up and what responsibilities I had in my household.
Suffice it to say, as an elder brother, I do know the joys and the trials of a large household.
Keep going and in no time at all your wife might be in the same physical and psychological state as Mrs. Yates in Texas (you do remember her, don't you?).
I'm glad you can treat the murder of five innocent children so flippantly.
My mother has five children. My aunt has eleven children. My other aunt has seven. All three moms are quite happy and healthy.
A good friend of mine is the sixteenth of seventeen children. His mother is alive and well and still helping her husband run the family dairy farm.
The concept of five children being an unbearable load is very recent and very selfish one.
Children don't cause mental problems.
Good idea.
It'll prevent you from further embarrassing yourself.
That's not what I said.
If one holds back one's procreative faculty one is not fully giving of one's self.
Has it ever occurred to you that some people know their physical, emotional, and financial limits in regard to the number of children they choose to have? That it is not selfishness, but rather the desire to be the best parents they can be, that motivates them to limit the number of children they bring into this world?
If one has a physical limit, then one need not worry - there will be no further children since one is physically incapable of having any more.
I don't understand the concept of an "emotional limit" - does one run out of love?
As for financial limits I find that argument to be extremely elastic. I know a couple who have two children who claim that they are financially strained to the breaking point by their kids, and I know three families who have one-fifth the financial resources of that family who have three or more times as many children.
That it is not selfishness, but rather the desire to be the best parents they can be, that motivates them to limit the number of children they bring into this world?
My aunt says that every new child you have helps you be a better parent to the others. She has eleven kids and she raised them on my uncle's salary as a high school teacher.
They had some rough spots, certainly. But whenever things looked grim, they found a way.
That is a high ideal, and much to be lauded. But is it really unlawful for married people to simply pursue pleasure as well?
As an analogy, I think it is ideal to waste no food, and to eat every meal with the purpose of sustaining one's body, and to enjoy it. But is it gluttony and sinful to enjoy a piece of cake purely for the taste and pleasure of it? I don't think so. I believe enjoying through the senses, in and of itself, is part of the divine plan.
Re: your analogy. Good point - a slice of cake in the context of a healthy, reasonable meal makes sense.
Eating an entire cake and ignoring anything nutritious does not.
In the same way, one can enjoy the pleasure of physical intimacy without tearing it from its larger context.
If only a few more of our leaders displayed a fraction of the moral integrity of Ronald Reagan!
Thanks for a thought-provoking post.
I said his statement advocates libertinism.
Regardless, this was a private communication.
The President's public communication was a message of freedom to millions in chains. And his vision came quickly to fruition. He is a great man.
One of the myths propagated by McClintockBots is that RR was some kind of arch-Conservative on sex and abortion issues. He was not. He kept abortion rhetoric to a minimum, and would likely not take a hard line against homosexual unions. In other words, not too far from where Arnold sits.
I think you exaggerate.
Reagan, as I heard him say personally, believes that abortion is evil and wrong.
While I don't think Reagan would support (or necessarily oppose) Texas-style sodomy laws, he would definitely be opposed to homosexual "unions" as a matter of legal status.
He isn't as hardline as McClintock, granted.
But he is not Schwarzenegger.
The issue that energized his Presidency was the Cold War - not sodomy or abortion.
Correct. And the issue which will energize the next Governor is the resuscitation of the California off of life support - not sodomy or abortion. But the latter seems to be what the battle is all about, to the benefit of Bustamante.
That's illogical. If someone disagrees with you it does not mean that you are doing something to impugn your own character.
What you are is one of that subset of the species who wants to tell others how best to live their lives.
Anyone who has an opinion on a moral issue falls into that subset of humanity, a subset coterminous with humanity itself.
You seem to have a firm opinion that you know what is best for others.
God knows what is best. I try to understand what He wants as well as I can according to my abilities. If I find a useful truth, I will certainly share it with others.
It's a losing game, sir, but play it if you must.
If one person on this thread was stirred to seriously consider the moral question at issue, then I've won the only victory I hoped for: a fair hearing.
Parenthetically, I find it amusing that you adopt a polite tone now, after implying that all women, including my wife, who are raising or who intend to raise large families are mentally imbalanced a la the mass killer Andrea Yates.
Every post you expend on mockery underlines the fact that you have not substantively engaged my argument.
Essentially you take the worldview of liberal modernity as an unexamined given, and if anyone questions it, you respond with abuse in lieu of syllogism.
It's really the most graceless way of conceding the debate.
I said his statement advocates libertinism.
I stand corrected. You expressed your sorrow that he was such an advocate of libertinism, you did not call him a libertine.
In any case, perhaps we agree that these newly unearthed letters are a welcome antidote to the leftist talking points turned conventional reality that Pres. Reagan was just short of an imbecile. The letters show a thoughtful, widely read, and sensitive gentleman.
So, I take it you've never really been horny? I will admit (and I'm Catholic) that sex with one's spouse is a whole lot better than sex with someone you do not care about. However, it still helps to be "turned on." We all have physical appetites. Satisfying them properly is not at all wrong. Indeed, no less a personage than Benjamin Franklin considered it therapeutic.
God knows what is best. I try to understand what He wants as well as I can according to my abilities. If I find a useful truth, I will certainly share it with others.
So, you have a direct connection to God and He is using you as a vehicle to enlighten us?
It's a losing game, sir, but play it if you must.
If one person on this thread was stirred to seriously consider the moral question at issue, then I've won the only victory I hoped for: a fair hearing. Parenthetically, I find it amusing that you adopt a polite tone now, after implying that all women, including my wife, who are raising or who intend to raise large families are mentally imbalanced a la the mass killer Andrea Yates
I was not implying that all women who intend to raise large families are mentally imbalanced. Go back and read the newspaper reports. Mrs. Yates was the unfortunate victim of her overbearing husband who demanded children, for which she was not equipped to handle emotionally. Check those accusations before you state them.
I am trying to tell you that you seem to think you have a lock on The Truth and it simply won't wash. People will live their lives in the way that they deem best, not what you deem best. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.