Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Contra-Contraception
new york times ^ | 5/7/06 | RUSSELL SHORTO

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: contraception; cultureoflife; dreaming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-191 next last
To: linda_22003

Beautifully said!


141 posted on 05/08/2006 11:54:31 AM PDT by Nick5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Nick5

But what a shame that some people need to be reminded, eh? :)


142 posted on 05/08/2006 12:03:44 PM PDT by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
Institutional authority should be viewed with extreme skepticism, because institutions always seem to want more of it...

It's like saying the human heart should be viewed with extreme skepticism, because it always seems to want more blood, and it can fail.

143 posted on 05/08/2006 12:15:39 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

Comment #144 Removed by Moderator

To: de gente non sancta

Nonsense. History is littered with the wreckage of "godly" societies, and the present day is swarming with thriving "godless" ones.


145 posted on 05/08/2006 1:08:20 PM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: de gente non sancta
Western society is beginning to fail now


146 posted on 05/08/2006 1:11:55 PM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
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.

In post #105, you said that a government which takes away the ability to do what you just described is tyrannical. But how can protecting individual liberties be tyrannical?

I'd also like to know your opinion on which individual rights can be restricted for which institutions, and to what extent this can be done.

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.

Do you ever suppose it is appropriate for a judge to play a part in shaping the culture? Or is it always bad and best left to the legislature?

If the latter describes your view, what do you think of judicial interference in the institution of marriage in Southern states in previous decades? In these states, marriage was culturally defined as existing between one man and one woman of the same race. However, the courts willy-nilly changed that definition to just one man and one woman. Was that an instance of tyranny? Would that issue have been better left with the legislatures (or the people) of those states to deal with?

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.

In those instances where judges compel action, I may agree with you. I fail to see how a judge protecting individual liberties, is a danger to liberty. Or how preventing government control is an instance of tyranny.

147 posted on 05/08/2006 1:56:30 PM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Eepsy
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.

If a couple only has sex when they know there is an incredibly small chance of pregnancy, aren't they also separating the conjugal act from the procreative act?

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.

The abstinence is fine, but what about those periods where the couple is not abstinent? What is so different between reducing your odds of pregnancy by having sex when you know it will likely not lead to pregnancy, versus using a barrier that will make sex likely not lead to pregnancy?

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.

What does it mean for NFP to be "tainted by the contraceptive mentality"?

How does contraceptive use change the nature of the sexual act in a way that NFP does not? In both cases, steps are taken to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy. That seems pretty similar to me.

148 posted on 05/08/2006 2:12:42 PM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

Comment #149 Removed by Moderator

To: de gente non sancta
Those who practice contraception do so because they willfully or ignorantly believe themselves to be smarter than God and more powerful than nature

Does this mean I willfully or ignorantly believe I'm smarter than God because I went to Wal-Mart and bought 6 gallons of Rust-Aid® to remove the rust stains the water from my sprinkler system made on my fence, house, and patio? Or am I willfully or ignorantly believing I'm smarter than God because I use sprinklers to begin with, and won't let my lawn turn brown and die? Or, for that matter, because I won't let my lawn grow more than an inch?

150 posted on 05/08/2006 2:33:10 PM PDT by King of Florida (A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: de gente non sancta
You stated that "history is littered with the wreckage of godly societies". Since you're apparently capable only of a line or two of text, name two - or perhaps post pics of them.

Well, if you want pictures:


151 posted on 05/08/2006 2:34:18 PM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: de gente non sancta
While it is unnatural, there is a difference bewtween this and the chemical extermination of human life, which is what takes place when potential parents use most forms of pharmaceutical contraception.

What is unnatural about that fact that there is only certain days when a women can get pregnant?

With all due respect, not really. Your Christianity will become fundamental when your main purpose in life is to know, love and serve God. He never said a single word about "religious liberty". In fact He made it clear that He was to rule all nations, and that we are to work towards that end - hence the doctrine of the Kingship of Christ.

With all due respect, my main purpose in life IS to know, love, and serve God. We are created with a free will. We can choose life or we can choose death. We can choose to serve God or not to serve God. All men are free to make this choice and to reap the rewards of his or her choice. Would that not be classified as religious freedom? In addition it is HE that will rule all nations. He does not direct us to force his will on others. There is no New Testament basis for forcing others to live according to Christian principles through the rule of law.

I'm honestly not trying to put you down in any way so please don't misunderstand, but this is more the doctrine of Plato or the French Revolution than it is of Our Lord.

Likewise I have no intention of putting you down, but I firmly believe that that my position is backed up by the bible. Our mission is to change the hearts of men through the preaching of the word and our testimony, not through force.
152 posted on 05/08/2006 5:00:40 PM PDT by Markdb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

Comment #153 Removed by Moderator

Comment #154 Removed by Moderator

To: de gente non sancta
The false god of liberty and "freedom"

You have no place on FREE REPUBLIC. Go. Now.

155 posted on 05/08/2006 7:16:16 PM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: timm22
How can protecting individual liberties be tyrannical?

When self-government has been eradicated, a state of tyranny exists.

156 posted on 05/08/2006 7:16:54 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: de gente non sancta
Attila, he was a pagan and his empire was brief

Lasted long enough to rip the guts out of the Roman (Catholic) Empire.

157 posted on 05/08/2006 7:17:06 PM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

Comment #158 Removed by Moderator

To: NutCrackerBoy
When self-government has been eradicated, a state of tyranny exists.

Who is talking about eradicating self-government? If anything, protecting individual liberties only increases self-government- we actually let the individual govern their own life to a greater extent by allowing them the freedom to make their own decisions. Again, how is that tyranny?

Or perhaps you are talking about democracy, even though I thought you believed we were a republic. Or perhaps you mean the ability of people to tell others how they must act. You might be able to call those things self-government, and I suppose respecting individual liberties does restrict them in some ways. But it in no way eradicates them.

If you are required to respect individual liberties, you still have the ability to choose your leaders, to choose how to deal with the violation of individual liberties, to set rules governing public property...all those aspects of self-government are still intact. You can't, however, "self-govern" to the extent that you can control any aspect of an individual's life. Is that really so tyrannical?

159 posted on 05/08/2006 9:47:13 PM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
I am also eager to hear your opinion of Loving v. Virginia, a case where 9 "philosopher-kings" stepped in and changed the cultural definition of marriage.
160 posted on 05/08/2006 9:51:21 PM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-191 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson