Posted on 05/25/2006 9:14:50 PM PDT by 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.
yes...there is the problem, the use of birth control, has denied males their right to procreate...birth control, is all about women controlling the males,women are saying; you can have sex with me, but I control the results...your ejaculate is nothing to me, but something to flush down the toilet....little wonder that our society is going down the tube....
It's all about increasing the size of the flock.
I don't recall even mentioning Catholics in my post. My view is personal and isn't even a practical possibility in today's world. But children should never be treated as the throw-aways they've become in today's America.
Yeah, let's not debate the issue. It's much easier to ascribe negative motives to a person's screen name which, as a self-described "literary" person, you should recognize. See my post #264.
Again, I didn't want to focus on this, but you're not considering things like 'gay marriage'. I do not want a federal law against gay marriage. Marriage, to me, is not a function of the federal govt.
The 'cheap democrat' fiscal conservatives generally embrace most of the democrat social policy positions--only slightly less so.
Again, if you mean we both believe that 'social' and 'personal' matters like consentual sex and drug use are not matters for the govt, then yes, we agree on that. But we also agree that slavery should be illegal. That hardly makes us 'Democrat-lite'. You saying that is a direct insult, and will only poison the well.
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.
Well, except I believe I've shown respect for your religious beliefs here, yet you attacked me and all 'political conservatives' by calling us Ds.
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.
I would say that's inaccurate. The ammendment is about protecting states from being forced to allow other states to make their own marriage laws. Federal enforcement of private, social rules, forcing all states to a single measure.
This is in no way a defense of local govt, in my opinion. It's a law telling local govts how they must set their own marriage laws. A clear intrusion of the fed govt on local powers. Specifically, to enforce your interpretation of one Christian moral rule.
So... was Thomas Jefferson a "liberal" when he imposed castration as the punishment for sodomy in Virginia when he was governor?
As governor, he didn't push a federal law forcing all other states to abide by his rule. So no, that is not a 'liberal' use of the federal govt.
Or if you manage to take over the GOP completely and give us no reason to vote--as is the situation in NJ.
The only way the GOP wins is if they have *both* of us. And that means ya'll have to learn to get along with us, just like we have to get along with ya'll.
Altho if the GOP in congress doesn't stop it with their 'liberal' ways, I personally will have no reason to vote for an R this fall.
Great post.
Apparently, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground (of course that won't stop your sanctimonious rantings).
If I dare to disagree with you, forgive me.
The student was speaking at a Catholic University. He wasn't advocating changing the laws, jack booted thuggery, bedroom invasions, or anything of the sort.
You don't like freedom of speech?
Yeah, that sounds like a good Catholic sentiment. Sheesh.
No, it sounds like the truth!
Unbelievable.
Love freedom of speech. I don't like his speech and I'm free to say so :~D Have a nice day.
Come on, now . . .
It's not a direct insult. It's true. You admitted it yourself.
It *is* a direct insult. It's like the old ploy, "Hitler drank milk, so if you drink milk you're a Hitler-lite." I do agree with Ds on some things. I also agree with Nazis on some things -- like milk.
If you can't bother to get behind a proposition as simple and fundamental as defining legally recognized marriage as only between one man and one woman, there's no way we can remain in the same party together over the long haul.
Exactly the 'all or nothing' attitude I'm referring to. I personally don't have a problem with either polygamy or same-sex marriage. So because of that, you don't want me voting R. Even if on 'political' issues, we agree. But because I believe that Marriage is basically a union between consenting adults, and those adults should be free to define what it means to them, you want us out of the party.
By far most Rs I know are Rs cuz of the old idea that the Rs are for smaller govt. Nothing to do with religion. Now that the Rs in Congress are making it clear they are not the part of smaller govt, if they continue to cause political Rs like me to avoid voting for them, it'll be interesting to see what happens to it.
And when a social conservative actually wins a primary for a statewide race, the "cheap democrats" quickly become "real democrats" and publicly support guys like Jimmy McGreevey over excellent conservatives like Bret Schundler.
That's the thing -- those aren't "cheap democrats", and they aren't political conservatives. Those are *real* liberals, and politicians who have "gone native".
Power corrupts. These folks may promise 'conservative' things to get elected, but once elected they use their power to help themselves, and their friends.
You don't have problems with 'political conservatives' in Jersey. You have problems with a liberal voter base.
Um, India, maybe... I'm not sure about that. But I can tell you that [with their caste system] virtually all social improvement was done by the church, if not directly then indirectly via western philosophy.
The Church is a leach, huh? I don't buy it. That there are the corrupt in the church is undeniable, even Christ admitted that there would be and warned us of wolves in sheep's clothing. Furthermore, the church was the first organization I know of to implement widespread social programs such as breadlines and adoption. (Way back in Roman times it was perfectly fine to leave an unwanted baby out in the wilderness to die, when it was found out that Christians would take care of these unwanted babies it became common practice to leave them where Christians would find them.)
On organized religions, I suppose that it really depends on how you define organized. Even when the Christian church is persecuted, perhaps especially, there is generally a great deal of organization.
As to your "religions find a way to profit at that the expense of those they purport to serve" statement, I'll offer one recent and shining counterexample: Mother Tressa. The amazing thing you don't realize is that this type of person is not as uncommon as you may think. I'd recommend reading Jesus Freaks Vol II to dispel your ignorance on the church, its people, and its work.
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.