Skip to comments.
"Birth Control Is Selfish" ... The Message Society Doesn't Want To Hear
No Room for Contraception ^
Posted on 05/25/2006 9:14:50 PM PDT by nrfcmedia
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 441-445 next last
To: SoothingDave
"If one wishes to "conserve" a way of life, one must first ensure that there are future generations. It's fundamental."
Then the people I said could have twelve are taking care of that. My only criterion as to how many kids people should have is that THEY should be able to support them.
To: Antoninus
"Sorry, missed the sarcasm." That's OK. I obviously need to work on my "Reductio ad absurdum".
222
posted on
05/26/2006 7:32:45 AM PDT
by
avg_freeper
(Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
To: Antoninus
Then how about calling it "NOYFB"? How about that, for a category? :)
To: nrfcmedia
This, of all the tough issues, is perhaps the toughest. Americans and especially Europeans don't want to hear the truth on this.
For the most part, we have chosen self-genocide.
Yes, abortion plays a role, but in Europe, abortion rates are, for the most part, not extraordinarily high (as opposed to, for instance, Russia), yet the birth rate is far below replacement rate.
Someone needs to talk about this, and I'm glad this brave young man started the public conversation in a big way.
To: bornacatholic
"BTW, you are full of it when it comes to your false charge the Church changed doctrine"
Are you saying that NFP would have been accepted by the Early Fathers?
To: Dominic Harr
I think that there are two types of 'Conservative' running around. For sake of discussion, I call them 'Social' conservatives and 'Political' conservatives. To a 'political' conservative, conservative is meant as in "conservative estimates" or "conservatvie with your money".
Yeah. Those are the people we call "cheap democrats."
A social conservative, as I understand it, wants to "conserve" older ways of doing things.
Not exactly. Social conservatives generally:
1.) Believe in God.
2.) Believe in Natural Law.
3.) Believe that we are endowed by God with certain inalienable rights.
4.) Believe that a just society is one built upon the recognition and celebration of our God-given rights as defined by Founding Fathers--not a bunch of "if it feels good, do it" nonsense from the 1960s.
5.) Believe that laws and or Supreme Court rulings which contradict or confound the Natural Law are unjust and destructive.
6.) Believe in local self-rule over national government one-size-fits-all rule.
7.) Believe that Judeo-Christian morality is the best basis for a sound and functioning civilization.
Over all, your points were pretty close to the mark.
226
posted on
05/26/2006 7:38:17 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(Ginty for US Senate -- NJ's primary day is June 6 -- www.gintyforsenate.org)
To: bornacatholic
BTW, you are full of it when it comes to your false charge the Church changed doctrine Maybe it's just me, but I'm not familiar with any official Church letter, encyclical, or statement prior to 1940 that addresses the liceity of spacing births.
227
posted on
05/26/2006 7:42:17 AM PDT
by
sinkspur
( Don Cheech. Vito Corleone would like to meet you......Vito Corleone.....)
To: linda_22003
Then how about calling it "NOYFB"? How about that, for a category? :)
Now Obey Your Freakin' Boyfriend?
228
posted on
05/26/2006 7:43:46 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(Ginty for US Senate -- NJ's primary day is June 6 -- www.gintyforsenate.org)
To: linda_22003
"If one wishes to "conserve" a way of life, one must first ensure that there are future generations. It's fundamental." Then the people I said could have twelve are taking care of that.
How's that attitude of sloughing off your responsibility to others working in Europe? Hurry up and ask a European before they're gone.
Are you sure you're arguing against the idea that birth control is a form of selfishness?
My only criterion as to how many kids people should have is that THEY should be able to support them.
Children are to viewed primarily as a burden, then?
SD
To: sinkspur
Maybe it's just me, but I'm not familiar with any official Church letter, encyclical, or statement prior to 1940 that addresses the liceity of spacing births.
Ah, so Humanae Vitae is some sort of "modern" misinterpretation of ancient Church teaching? Wow, that's almost an SSPX argument...
230
posted on
05/26/2006 7:49:22 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(Ginty for US Senate -- NJ's primary day is June 6 -- www.gintyforsenate.org)
To: Scotswife
Because the Church is not against birth control when it is done using natural methods. And for good reason! It is just as wrong to use natural methods for selfish reasons.
SD
To: SoothingDave
"And for good reason! It is just as wrong to use natural methods for selfish reasons. "
true...and still...the Church does allow birth control. The Church does not allow artificial contraception.
Comment #233 Removed by Moderator
To: Antoninus
Ah, so Humanae Vitae is some sort of "modern" misinterpretation of ancient Church teaching?Who said that? Not me.
234
posted on
05/26/2006 7:55:37 AM PDT
by
sinkspur
( Don Cheech. Vito Corleone would like to meet you......Vito Corleone.....)
To: Antoninus
Yeah. Those are the people we call "cheap democrats." Well, insults are probably not helpful, in my opinion. I mean, I could point out that 'social' conservatives seem to believe in big, intrusive govt to enforce their ideas on others . . . and compare ya'll to Ds too. But I don't think such a silly argument will get us anywhere.
Besides, you're saying the Ds are 'politically conservative'? Methinks your perspective is somewhat out of whack.
The problem you have is with those of us who are not particularly devout Christians . . . if you want a 'Christian' party, that'd be wonderful, and might solve this problem.
But I'd argue that the vast majority of us are *not* devout Christians are put off by the 'God first/Christian Morals first' approach that can cause 'social conservatives' to push for federal powers and laws that many of us would consider to be politically 'liberal'. As in allowing a liberal use of govt powers. Like laws against homosexuals, and prostitution, and the like.
Whether we like it or not, we've been in bed politically for a while now. And without us political conservatives, the R party will crumble to minority status.
235
posted on
05/26/2006 7:55:54 AM PDT
by
Dominic Harr
(Conservative = Careful, as in 'Conservative with money')
To: peyton randolph
Actually one would think their inability to stop having rampant sex is the problem.
I've never heard of women who beleive in the teachings of the church spontanously getting pregnant (ok once).
236
posted on
05/26/2006 7:56:42 AM PDT
by
x5452
To: nrfcmedia
*Grave* reasons, not just "good" reasons.Apparently every couple will face those grave reasons, since NFP is required of every couple who seeks to marry in many dioceses.
237
posted on
05/26/2006 7:57:20 AM PDT
by
sinkspur
( Don Cheech. Vito Corleone would like to meet you......Vito Corleone.....)
To: nrfcmedia
Why is it some people have such a hard time minding their own G-D business? Sheesh!
To: x5452
To: thinking
America doesn't have just one racial identity. Come on say what you really mean.
240
posted on
05/26/2006 8:00:40 AM PDT
by
hootiebird
(OMG! there are latinos in LA)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 441-445 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson