Posted on 09/22/2003 7:40:19 AM PDT by presidio9
Former President Ronald Reagan wrote a young widow not to believe that people have only one love in their lives - and not to feel guilty about sex. The note to childhood friend Florence Yerly is one of more than 5,000 penned by the now 92-year-old Reagan, who has been debilitated by Alzheimer's.
Yerly's husband had died in 1951 and she wrote Reagan, who had recently divorced first wife Jane Wyman, that she planned on staying single.
"Can you believe that God means for millions of really young people to go on through life alone because a war robbed them of their first loves?" he wrote.
He also told her not to feel bad about sex, admitting that "even in marriage, I had a little guilty feeling about sex." But, he said, a "fine old gentleman" who studied primitive cultures helped him overcome that feeling.
"These peoples who are truly children of nature and thus of God, accept physical desire as a natural, normal appetite," he wrote Yerly.
He also rejected "dogmas of some organized religions" that said sex is only for procreation.
The letter is one of many in "Reagan: A Life in Letters," which was produced with the cooperation of wife Nancy Reagan and will be released tomorrow. It includes letters to friends like Yerly, strangers, and world leaders, including a four-pager to Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev asking if they could work together to reduce the tensions between the two nuclear powers.
You are asserting something, a moral value (i.e., one should approach sex always allowing for the possibility of impregnation) and I, and most of the others, just don't agree. This is not a debate: it is a disagreement as to personal values. You and your wife want children. I don't. What's the debate, sir?
I think I feel sorry for your wife.......especially when she gets too old to bear your children.
Well, since we're entering the realm of the anecdotal: I know a pastor who had three children with his wife, and they adopted a fourth. His wife wanted to adopt a fifth, but the pastor wouldn't do it. They are just scraping by. Often, they depend on the generosity of others (like us) just to make it. Are you seriously suggesting that they are "selfish" not to have more children?
As for this:
I don't understand the concept of an "emotional limit" - does one run out of love?
Raising children is far from a stress-free job, and it has nothing to do with "running out of love". Some people are not emotionally prepared to deal with the stresses of parenthood times 10, or whatever number you have determined is the correct one.
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.
Well, that's very nice for them and perhaps they felt called to do it - but God doesn't call every couple to have children, let alone eleven of them.
What in hell is 'libertine' about recommending that a young widow remarry? I suppose you think widows should be sent to the burning ghats. Are we outsourcing our social customs too, these days?
Are you saying that after my wife's hysterectomy, which was 23 years ago, I should have started sleeping on the couch? What a cold and loveless life you must lead.
Nor am I.
Furthermore, I submit that people who do not have more children than they can afford and adequately care for (with the obvious exception of aborting those children) should be considered responsible, not "selfish".
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. Of Reagan and Clinton, which do you think actually read The Federalist Papers thoroughly and attentively, weighing their arguments deliberately in his mind? Their public utterances alone give the immediate answer.
All Christians, through grace, have access to God. As I said, I try to understand his will as best I can and to share what I learn with others.
Check those accusations before you state them.
You know very well what you said.
I find it interesting that you take the radical feminist view of the Yates case: that it was not her genetic predisposition toward schizophrenia, but her life as a wife and mother which contributed to her crime.
I am trying to tell you that you seem to think you have a lock on The Truth and it simply won't wash.
Again, the truth is independent of either my sentiments and feelings or yours. Your apparent stance, one of absolute moral relativism, is logically indefensible. The truth, that there is an objective moral independent of personal whim, is not so weak.
People will live their lives in the way that they deem best, not what you deem best.
Again, everyone has the responsibility to defend their beliefs - I will not abandon mine because others find them uncomfortable.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
I understand perfectly that many want to advocate moral relativism. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that I disagree?
That is correct. And the proper way to satisfy one's sexual desires is in the context of marriage, in an act which is wholly open to the possibility of creating new life.
Indeed, no less a personage than Benjamin Franklin considered it therapeutic.
Franklin is not a moral authority I recognize.
Thank you for crystallizing the essence of the debate. The debate is: are individual whims the measure of morality, or is there an objective moral order?
You and your wife want children. I don't. What's the debate, sir?
You have just outlined it.
So is the eating for mere physical pleasure - the sin of gluttony. Still there are minor and greater sins and nobody is perfect, even the hermits and great ascetics like Saint Antony had their weaknesses.
Mechanically, but not morally.
The male and female 'incentive' is different.
The addition of the interpersonal aspect makes sex fuller - not different.
I think I feel sorry for your wife.......especially when she gets too old to bear your children.
Rather than engage my argument, you've lowered yourself to personal insults.
That's a shame.
Abraham and Sarah had a child at very advanced age :)
Keep the thread participants in your prayers.
They know their own circumstances best.
As I said, I find the argument extremely elastic.
Some people are not emotionally prepared to deal with the stresses of parenthood times 10
And there are moral ways to avoid that stress.
Citing my aunt again, when three of my cousins were 1, 3 and 4 respectively my other cousins were 13, 12 and 10 and very good at feeding, changing and comforting their younger siblings. Having 10 children does not mean having 10 2 year olds simultaneously.
God doesn't call every couple to have children, let alone eleven of them
If they are not called to have that many children, then they won't be able to. There's no need to bring drugs and balloons into it.
Apparently you neglected to read my original post. A common mistake on this forum.
I suppose you think widows should be sent to the burning ghats.
Again, it would serve you well to read (and think) before you speak.
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.