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 ...
By highlighting the personal pronouns, I assume you are making the point that it's not solely his decision. There's only one other person I can think of who's involved; his wife, and aside from the two of them, it can't possibly be anyone else's business.
I think just about 100% of people would agree with you (me too) if you said that about "family planning" or even "birth control." Family planning or birth control are broadly-defined terms which could include any action to avoid or achieve or space pregnancies, including non-contraceptive means.
Some married couples without a doubt have a serious reason to want to postpone or avoid pregnancy; this is truly a private decision which only they can make; and these couples should choose their sexual behavior accordingly.
But contraception, specifically, treats normal fertility as a defect, as something to be medicated or doctored or "fixed" with drugs or surgery. And its long-term effect (as we have certainy seen in the last 40 years) is to facilitate nonmarital intercourse, vastly lessen the emotional significance of sexual intimacy, and create a sex-lite milieu which ultimately undermines marriages.
It is directly implicated in the huge increase of non-marriage and of marriage breakup which happened largely over the last 40 years, i.e. exactly coinciding with the contraceptive revolution.
If you don't buy that, you should read the Playboy History of the Sexual Revolution (that's not the exact title, but I can't find it right now) which makes the case in an absolutely devastating manner.
It all comes down to what William Smith, the guy from SIECUS, said disapprovingly in the article: "The linking of abortion and contraception is indicative of a larger agenda, which is putting sex back into the box, as something that happens only within marriage..." Mr. Smith doesn't like that idea, but conservatives interested in conserving marriage, conserving families and conserving our nations' future, are increasingly realizing what's at stake.
What I mean by "self-govern on the basis of social reality" is that in a functioning polis under the rule of law, laws are always made that technically restrict individual liberties, but that keep strong beneficial cultural institutions.
For example, legal marriage, with benefits and responsibilities, has been culturally defined as between one man and one woman. Other definitions are imaginable, and may technically afford some legal benefits and symbolic acceptance otherwise unavailable to some. But it is imperative that this legal definition be a legislative not judicial matter. Giving judges the power to willy nilly change the culture is not good. Tyranny? OK, I agree it is not comparable to death squads. Rule by judges is a soft tyranny which to my mind is a significant danger for liberty.
Bandwagon fallacy.
That is very well put.
I am by almost any definition, a fundamental Christian, but this type of issue is where the more extreme element of the Christian right loses me. I am opposed to abortion because it clearly violates the rights of another, that is the conceived yet unborn child. Therefore it is a very basic black and white issue.
Contraception, on the other hand, is clearly a matter of opinion and interpretation. It's my opinion and interpretation that being as God designed us with a built in birth control system, it could not be wrong. You are free to argue with me on that, but what scares me is those of you who oppose it are sounding to me like you want a theocracy. I believe freedom of religion is a Christian principle, and quite frankly, I don't want another Christian telling me what to do in my personal life any more than I want anyone else doing that.
I believe as Christians we should make our voices and our opinions heard, but trying to impose our personal morals on others through legislation will only serve to hurt all of us in the end.
Well, what can I say, God created ME with a self, and this SELF doesn't want nineteen children. Sorry. How does the SELF that is YOU handle this issue in YOUR person life?
Conservatives need to squash their (figurative) Taliban faction for the same reason Muslims need to squash their (literal) Taliban faction -- if they don't, the rest of the world will squash them without bothering to make that fine distinction.
The distinction between "artificial" and "natural" is bogus. As Robert Heinlein once put it, Hoover Dam is every bit as "natural" as a beaver dam.
Yes. Artificial birth control is the intentional separation of the conjugal act from the procreative act. It's an attempt to "have your cake and eat it" and fundamentally distorts the nature of sex and the relationship between man and woman.
There are valid, prudential reasons for wishing to avoid the birth of a child. None of those reasons justify the sin of contraception (in Catholic theology), but simple abstinence within marriage is not contraception, is not a sin, and is even encouraged in the bible.
NFP can become tainted by the contraceptive mentality and be used for illicit reasons, but this is a completely different sin than that of using artificial contraception, by reason that it does not interfere with the nature of the sexual act.
That is very well put.
"Using the state to serve society" is not how I would have put it. But the response sounds positively Nietzchean. Good luck forming a functional polity based on the rejection of all institutional authority. Let me know how that goes (snicker).
Osama? Is that you?
(PSSST -- put a tracer on this line....)
And stimulants treat normal fatigue as a defect, and analgesics treat normal nerve stimuli as a defect. Your point?
Fatigue and pain are suboptimal states; they signal a degree of exhaustion or a reaction to damage. That's why using painkillers, etc. is ethical. Fertility, on the other hand, is an aspect of normal sexual health. It is not legitimate to deliberately attack or vitiate a healthy system. Whatever else that may be, it's not healthcare.
Nope. Your use of "suboptimal" makes your argument circular.
In other words: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Institutional authority should be viewed with extreme skepticism, because institutions always seem to want more of it--and giving money and authority to any institution, without being really obsessively compulsive about monitoring said money and authority to prevent abuse, is akin to giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys...
Bump!
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.