"Birth Control Is Selfish" ... The Message Society Doesn't Want To Hear

No Room for Contraception ^

[nrfcmedia]

"Birth Control Is Selfish" ... The Message Society Doesn't Want To Hear

This past weekend graduates of Saint Thomas University were treated to a surprising speech by 21-year-old graduating student Ben Kessler. Some graduates walked out, many jeered, and others spewed profanities in response to his speech.

Just what did he speak of which caused such an outcry? The War in Iraq? Border control? NSA spying? None of the above.

So, what exactly did Mr. Kessler do wrong? He touched society's third rail: contraception. Mr. Kessler had the audacity to call the use of birth control "an act of selfishness."

One would have expected some encouraging applause from the audience, after all St. Thomas is a Catholic institution. The reality is that many of these Catholic students and family members are themselves using contraception, and Mr. Kessler confronted their lifestyle and the use of contraception.

Mr. Kessler dared to speak about this issue and people didn't want to hear his message. What happened to the exchange of ideas universities are famous for? Where were all of the supposed "open minds" at during this speech? Instead of listening to his speech with an open mind, it seems that they were too busy keeping themselves ignorant by jeering and ridiculing him.

Society has a lust affair with birth control to the point of not being able to think outside of the box. We live in a contraception "matrix" where it's impossible to believe that there are any harmful effects on marriage, society, and the health of women.

This "contraception deception" is the primary force behind the attacks against the contra-contraception message.

For the most part, society doesn't want to hear the message. This message is that, in our culture, contraception leads to increases in abortion, teenage sex, affairs (and subsequent divorce), health problems, and statutory rape. These facts are apparent by simply comparing statistics.

Why are people willfully preserving their ignorance? For the past century, people have lived in a society that endorses the practice of a contraceptive lifestyle of easy, commitment free, and on-demand sex without challenging them to question possible adverse effects.

Mr. Kessler could have spoke about the start of a career, the discernment of a vocation, the undertaking of new responsibilities, or many other subjects related to graduation. But hopefully his bold message will help to his classmates to question the force-fed information they have heard all their lives concerning human sexuality and contraception and arrive at a more natural, healthier view of human sexuality.

The contraception debate is long overdue, and it is people like Mr. Kessler who are breaking down the walls of ignorance, selfishness, and deception. Society may be resistant to this message, but over time the truth will prevail.

[hootiebird]

Great song. Laughed my @$$ off.

[Bernard Marx]

Mexico has numerous problems that we do not have in our society.

True, although illegal aliens are rapidly bringing Mexico's problems here. But we have problems Mexico doesn't have. I'm thinking of the poor little 17-year-old mother in Los Angeles who fought her son's abductors this week. She decided to fight only after seriously considering selling her baby for $6000. She had previous children taken away by CPS because she couldn't provide decent care for them.

What is any American single 17-year-old already mired in poverty doing mothering children? I'm all in favor of happy big married families, but only if the economics are right. I'd favor enforced sterilization for the young girl in question.

[goodnesswins]

GREAT post!

[goodnesswins]

NO...it was a GREAT place.....these were graduates of a Catholic University heading out to LIFE.....to JOBS....to make FAMILIES....to hopefully not SCREW up those things with thinking and acting like sex does not have consequences. Considering the climate we have now (media) it was totally appropriate.

[HairOfTheDog]

Amazing how people get touchy when the topic of sex and responsibility and morality get brought up. Recreational sex without any responsibility must be defended at all costs, apparently.

Americans do get touchy when people start telling them how, when and why to have, or not have, sex, or calling their choices 'selfish' if they choose not to have children. It's a personal or religious decision, and outside of that, it's not anyone's business.

[SoothingDave]

I'd favor enforced sterilization for the young girl in question.

And yet, somehow, the Catholics in making moral arguments for personal change are the scary ones who want to force their views on everyone.

SD

[SoothingDave]

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'.

Is it now impossible to make moral arguments without being simultaneously in favor of new federal legislation mandating that all obey?

SD

[Dominic Harr]

Is it now impossible to make moral arguments without being simultaneously in favor of new federal legislation mandating that all obey?

I'm sorry, I don't believe I said that.

I'm simply pointing out that *sometimes* 'social conservatives' do push for more intrusive govt in areas that many of us more 'secular' types feel is inappropriate.

And actually, I'm trying to suggest that we shouldn't focus on those things that seperate us. Instead, we should come to agreement on the issues we can, and then fight for those changes in govt.

Forgive me if I wasn't clear enough.

[madprof98]

He figured he'd start wagging his finger at people to get a little practice for the kind of priest he'd be.

Naturally, you didn't bother listening the speech, which was hardly a finger-wagging sort of presentation. Actually, he was using the "contraceptive mentality" as one example of the larger issue of selfishness (vs. the "selflessness" he was pushing). That example would make perfect sense to anyone well versed in Catholic moral thought, which evidently would not include (a) the students at this college or (b) you.

It was an excellent topic for a short commencement address and would have passed unnoticed if he had chosen some generic secular examples (or some deliberately anti-Catholic ones) rather than assuming that Catholic grads would find a common point of reference in Catholic teaching.

[SoothingDave]

Forgive me if I wasn't clear enough.

No problem. Too many people want to jump from moral criticism to "they're trying to force their religious views on us" as a substitute for argument.

SD

[Junior_G]

I'd be happy if we could just convince people that abortion is selfish.

[Antoninus]

I'd favor enforced sterilization for the young girl in question.

Sounds like your screen name (at least the second half of it) is well deserved.

[linda_22003]

No.... None of Your F'in Business. :) Directed to anyone outside of the two people who will be having and supporting said children.

Everyone have a good weekend - I'm outa here for the long weekend. No flames or vituperation will be seen until Tuesday, and will most likely be ignored even then. :)

[linda_22003]

No, I'm arguing that selfishness is not against the law. It's up to people who want to be 'selfish' about it. And I've never known a woman who had a baby because of national demographics or macroeconomic reasons.

[SoothingDave]

No, I'm arguing that selfishness is not against the law.

Who said it was or should be? Can't someone argue that a thing is bad, immoral or undesireable without being accused of wanting to outlaw it?

You've illustrated my last post beautifully, thank you. Have a good weekend.

SD

[Antoninus]

Americans do get touchy when people start telling them how, when and why to have, or not have, sex, or calling their choices 'selfish' if they choose not to have children. It's a personal or religious decision, and outside of that, it's not anyone's business.

And yet the secular media and entertainment industry does that constantly. Except their message is--just do it, whenever, wherever, and with whoever you want.

It's only when someone has the courage to say "This is wrong," that these same people get their panties in a twist.

"I'm ok, you're ok"--the mantra of the 1960s hedonists--has become conventional wisdom today. Pity.

[thinking]

Sure...I thought I made it clear...the Caucasian Europeans

[HairOfTheDog]

And yet the secular media and entertainment industry does that constantly. Except their message is--just do it, whenever, wherever, and with whoever you want.

It's certainly fair to say sex is big entertainment, but being free to do what you want is part of freedom as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. There's lots of room to argue about the effect of public displays of sex... That's not this issue. The intent to have kids and how many is the issue. It's something people have the ~right~ to evangelize and name-call about, I suppose, but it's not a movement I'll be part of. That's all I'm sayin.

[Antoninus]

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 that would be simply a false statement. Most social conservatives believe in local self-government absent an imperious, overweening federal or state judiciary. You know, of the kind that would allow the the Mount Soledad Cross to remain in San Diego without being subject to some black-robed dictator demanding that it be taken down. Or a town that wants to permit prayer in their public schools without having to worry that they'll lose a lawsuit filed by the ACLU.

Besides, you're saying the Ds are 'politically conservative'?

I don't recall saying that. The Democrats are communists economically and politically speaking. The 'cheap democrat' fiscal conservatives generally embrace most of the democrat social policy positions--only slightly less so. They almost completely agree on moral issues.

The problem you have is with those of us who are not particularly devout Christians.

No, I don't have a problem with them at all--as long as they respect our religious beliefs, even if they don't agree with them on every point, and refrain from attacking them. For example, I don't believe it's necessary to keep kosher, but I respect like heck those who do and don't ridicule them for doing so. The trouble is, too many of these "political conservatives" have followed the Democrats into naked hatred of Christians--and Orthodox Jews for that matter.

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'.

Huh? Most of us are too busy trying to defend our right to locally self-govern from the secular federal government intent on stripping us of that right. That's what the Federal Marriage Amendment is about--protecting the rights of the state and local governments from an intrusive, unwelcome novelty being imposed via the unelected courts.

When was the last time you saw a Christian morals law get passed through the Congress?

As in allowing a liberal use of govt powers. Like laws against homosexuals, and prostitution, and the like.

So... was Thomas Jefferson a "liberal" when he imposed castration as the punishment for sodomy in Virginia when he was governor? This is the first time I've heard the term "liberal" used to describe the rights of local and state governments to create their own vice laws.

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.

Only if you guy decide that the Dems more closely reflect your opinions. Or if you manage to take over the GOP completely and give us no reason to vote--as is the situation in NJ. And guess what? The GOP is in perpetual minority status in that state thanks to "cheap democrats" like Christie Todd Whitman and Tom Kean.

[Antoninus]

None of Your F'in Business.

Hey, if you don't like the message, no one is forcing you to read the article. Isn't that what you liberal-tarians preach?

It's not like this guy came into your house and said this. Apparently, you object to this message being proclaimed anywhere...