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.
Antoninus, you and I have already disagreed on the question of whether TR was a proto-fascist. I stand by my earlier opinion.
"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."
Indeed, this has been a very educational thread, thanks.
Pot, kettle. At least young Kessler has the advantage of being on truth's side.
Rigght Im sure all the eople using beirth control have three kids and are just doing it to stay off the street. We all see here is the fool...
That he would upbraid his fellow classmates on the day they culminate four years of effort indicates a selfishness on Kessler's part. The thought that he might have been out of line likely never crossed his mind.
I disagree that this is a statement of fact, except as it relates to your 'all or nothing' attitude on this. We could happily stay in the same party, since 95% of our goals are the same. Your suggestion seems to be all party members must agree on all things, or else they will have to break up the party. That, in fact, is my point here -- you folks on the 'social conservative' side seem to have this attitude that I disagree with, and I was hoping to chat with you about it some.
Isn't anecdotal evidence fun?
I think you missed my point, maybe I wasn't clear enough -- there are a lot of *both* of us. And we need each other. Political conservatives like myself do respect the religious and moral convictions of others. We just don't want religion being the primary motivating factor behind proposed laws.
My question for you is: would you vote for such a candidate?
Me -- I probably wouldn't pay any attention to what they promised. I'd look at their record. If they have a record of keeping spending down, and of keeping govt power in check, I'd consider them a 'C' and vote for them. If not, then I would not.
If I lived in Jersey, I'd probably write in someone I know personally. I live in Texas, and on more than one occasion I've written in my father-in-law, a good businessman and a deacon in his presbyterian church.
But our more immediate problem is a liberal GOP which prevents even the contest of ideas from properly taking place on even ground.
Again, my point. It's not the 'politically conservative' folks you blamed it on earlier, it's real Libs who lie and call themselves Cs.
You seem to be suggesting two things with your statements.
That a religious impulse invalidates a good idea.
And that there are no good "non-religous" arguments for things like marriage and morality.
Also, you fall into the trap like the others and assume that a speaker calling for introspection on a subject like contraception is trying to "propose laws."
One can call on an audience to avoid pre-marital sex and drinking to excess without being in favor of outlawing fornication and alcohol.
SD
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I probably should have said, "We just don't want religion to be the 'only' motivating factor behind proposed laws".
And that there are no good "non-religous" arguments for things like marriage and morality.
I must not be writing clearly enough, I'm sorry. It's friday, and I'm working on a project in the background, not giving this my full attention.
My point actually is that "non-religous" arguments are the things that sway 'political conservatives'. Certainly there are good arguments for marriage and many 'morality' laws lik murder. And those are the kinds of discussions i'm arguing we should be having.
Also, you fall into the trap like the others and assume that a speaker calling for introspection on a subject like contraception is trying to "propose laws."
Actually, I was specifically talking about the cases where it translates to law.
Quite the contrary, I am all for religious (and anyone, for that matter) speaking out condemning that which they don't think is healthy. I'm only turned off when it becomes a movement to make laws. And even then, mainly when it becomes a movement to a 'federal' law.
Could we have popped out a dozen little hicks and fed them until they were old enough to drop out of school and join the exciting food services industry... probably.
And I can't say supernatural forces have ever played a role in my financial planning.
SD
You didn't read or listen to the speech did you? He covered more than just birth control.
Mexico's problem is not lack of contraception. It is corruption, and the lack of a strong rule of law, the lack of strong property rights, and a socialist government.
Yeah!
Priest better not tell people about sin! Oh Noooo! Not sin... anything but THAT!!
Based on your reply, I see that you could have raised more kids, but apparently not in the level of luxury and privilege to which you are accustomed.
I know plenty of losers whose parents provided them with every privilege - and have met many respectable people who work in food service.
Your priorities are obvious - and sad.
That is selfish too, which is why there is a thing called "abstinence."
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.