Posted on 05/07/2006 11:05:36 AM PDT by mathprof
Daniel Defoe is best remembered today for creating the ultimate escapist fantasy, "Robinson Crusoe," but in 1727 he sent the British public into a scandalous fit with the publication of a nonfiction work called "Conjugal Lewdness: or, Matrimonial Whoredom." After apparently being asked to tone down the title for a subsequent edition, Defoe came up with a new one — "A Treatise Concerning the Use and Abuse of the Marriage Bed" — that only put a finer point on things. The book wasn't a tease, however. It was a moralizing lecture.[snip]
The sex act and sexual desire should not be separated from reproduction, he...warned, else "a man may, in effect, make a whore of his own wife."[snip]
The wheels of history have a tendency to roll back over the same ground. For the past 33 years — since, as they see it, the wanton era of the 1960's culminated in the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 — American social conservatives have been on an unyielding campaign against abortion. But recently, as the conservative tide has continued to swell, this campaign has taken on a broader scope. Its true beginning point may not be Roe but Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that had the effect of legalizing contraception. "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Curses, foiled again!
Oh, ya big goof! I know what you mean! Enjoy your kids! God is good!
Not even the snerdliest origamic ratite form fair phase my whiplashlian wit.
Well, I agree there are tyrannical governments. For example, one which takes away the right of the people to self-govern on the basis of social reality. One which, under the guise of protecting individual rights, elevates judges to super-legislators.
I read it but I don't understand how anyone could have that point of view. Contraception has its place in marriage, and for singles that engage in sex, outside of marriage. I really can't see how anyone could feasibly, and reasonably, argue against all contraception
Dear me; my slippery fingers failed my febrile fling, the sling, once loosed, slung past the flung, that errant "phase" which faze should be, surely should not have come from me.
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/contraception.htm
I would paste the whole thing here but it is very long.
Thank you but I'm not Catholic and any power you would seek to outlaw contraception on a national level does not exist in the Constitution. If one chooses to use contraception that is a decision to be made between two sovereign individuals and none of your business.
And nor, contrary to Griswold, does any enumerated power exist in the Constitution to prevent the states from outlawing contraception.
That's fine, I have no issue with that. As a Southerner, I recognize and fully embrace the intended rights of the separate and sovereign states under the 10th Amendment. However, I would imagine if the issue arose at the state level, the state legislatures would move to amend their constitutions on issues of personal choice. Unlike abortion, contraception does not infringe upon the rights of another individual
Although I may disagree with your prediction, I will point out that either way it would be more of a legislative issue than a constitutional issue at the state level.
Well stated. I must concur with your assessment, 'rhythm' and 'artificial' are contraceptive practices. Personally, I had a vasectomy to settle the issue.
What do you mean by "self-govern on the basis of social reality"?
One which, under the guise of protecting individual rights, elevates judges to super-legislators.
Why would that be tyrannical? It might be somewhat less democratic than what we have now, but it wouldn't confer sole or absolute power on the judiciary, now would that system have to be particularly harsh or cruel.
Tyranny and lack of democracy are not always the same thing, nor is democracy a guaranteed preventive for tyranny.
Jawohl, mein Fuhrer. Thanks for the advance notice.
One question for you. If birth control is wrong as you state that it is, why did God himself provide us with a natural built in form of birth control known as the rhythm method?
Except, of course, for that category of contraceptives which can or must function as abortifacients.
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.