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 ...
In your world, does the state exist to serve the individual, or does the individual exist to serve the state?
a conservative who's not a social conservative is no conservative at all
_____________________________________________________
Say it loud and say it proud.
LOL!
Larry, you're the best.
You may if you wish claim to have "rights". However consequences of actions are not subject to debate. They simply are.
>>Your sexual habist and practices are not a private matter. They are quite public when they either do not produce reproductive results or do so in abudance.<<
So if a husband or wife has fertility problems you believe that is a public matter?
I'm surprised the post is still there, actually. :-)
Yep, just burn a few contraceptors at the stake. Better pass gun control laws first, though. Lots of folks will not come quietly. (No pun intended, maybe).
How about when they don't bring life into the world?
Right but I was reponding to this part "They are quite public when they either do not produce " - I don't see why it is public business if a couple doesn't reproduce.
I guess you don't have a problem with China's one child rule then- after all, if the state has an interest in how many children a couple, it should be able to ban contraception or mandate sterilization at will, correct?
>>It is a public matter when they bring a life into this world. Insofar as the taxpayer will bear a considerable burden for that child, education, bureaucracy in tracking him etc..<<
BTW, you realize this is similar to the argument that liberals use to regulate every detail of our lives - that we all effect each other and the government should have great power.
I know what the Constitution says, but I'm sorry if I'm not one of those "living, breathing" Consitution types, where it constantly changes.
Please tell me where in the Constitution it says people are not free to criticize society? You and others on this thread seem to think simply expressing opinion is an unconstitutional act and has to be stamped out.
To be more precise, the number of workers supporting an elderly person has been declining, giving a larger burden to those that are left. With longer longevity rates the cost of medical care to keep these walking cadavers increases while the number of workers paying taxes to maintain the aging population increases. Thus the decision via the "tyranny of small decisions" (Economist Alfred E Kahn's phrase) , not to have children, has enormous consequences for society in the long run. In Europe the consequence may be that the muslim workers who will make the major part of the labor force will refuse to pay for the upkeep of aging decrepit white folks. All our decisions one way or the other have consequences. To argue otherwise is to be totally detached from reality.
Okay so how about my economic choices? Do you want to use community impact to control my economic decisions as well? That's called socialism, are you in favor of that? If not why not?
The difference is that the puritan-flavored objection to private choices about sex makes sense to moralists. But sexual choices are as much my own business as are economic choices. I am an adult. I am free to make choices without undue regard for the objections of those without standing in the decision. In short, the wisdom here is the wisdom your mother no doubt tried to impart when you were very young; mind you own business.
So, having kids impacts the world. Not having kids impacts the world. Gotcha.
Now, if you'll excuse me I'm going to have fun with my wife with no intention of having kids this weekend. I apologize if anyone else is affected.
Well, actually, no, I don't apologize.
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.