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 ...
"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."
I have said nothing even remotely close to that. But I will strongly disagree with anyone who thinks there is no right to privacy in the constitution. And it wasn't put there by a living breathing process it's always been there.
Bravo. As the oldest of 12 children from an Italian Catholic family, I can tell you that no child is an "accident". They are all blessings from God, the question is whether the parents are open to accepting these wonderful gifts. Unfortunately, for many parents, the answer to such question is a resounding NO.
Natural Famlily Planning (you date yourself by calling it "rhythm," a term which hasn't been used since the 60's) isn't contraception. It's abstinence.
Jawohl, Herr Doktor!
Not for three weeks, it ain't.
So just to clarify, Cacique, should there or shouldn't there be laws against contraception, or against non-procreational sex acts between married couples? That's all I really care about. If you just disapprove, I couldn't care less.
Oh, and when practing NFP to decide when to "abstain," watch that whole digital manipulation of the cervix. Some NFP practitioners warn that this amounts to masturbation.
I am not, repeat, NOT, making that up.
I'm with you, Nick5. It's extreme and wrongheaded to say that married people can only have sex when you want a child; and it would be irresponsible to have multiple children that you knew you couldn't support.
But I praise God for making fertility and infertility part of the female design. (I don't think I'm exaggerating in saying that the design of human sexuality is brilliant.) It makes it possible for husbands and wives to choose the fertile or the infertile time, and to achieve or avoid pregnancy: as only you and your wife have the right and the wisdom to decide.
I stand by the comparison. He sounds like he's speaking for the Bunde Deutscher Madel.
As one doctor I know said, "You know what we call women who practice natural cycle birth control? Mothers." It's so hard to predict and get it right--witness my first child. But how happy am I that we goofed!!!!!!!
We are speaking only of the federal government. Article I Section 8 ennumerates what the federal government is permitted to do - the BOR sharpens the point regarding liberties which the federal government must not abridge. And even though the states should also supply those protections, we have the Doctrine of Incorporation allowing the federal courts to protect them down through the states.
But it is not correct to say the Constitution forbids state governments from regulating the hell out of a wide range of things. Like for example, the SCOTUS' incorrect Lawrence v. state of Texas decision that absurdly created the federally protected right to sodomy. (BTW I would be very opposed to laws banning sodomy in my state.)
No government can ever take away a persons natural rights. Even if your state constitution didn't grant a freedom to speech its still illegal to take away god given rights. If it does its cause to rebel and destroy that government.
Okay, I didn't find a direct answer in your speech. Yes, different times call for different approaches, yada yada yada.
I'll ask again, is it ever okay to make someone a felon for having non-procreative sex with his wife (i.e, using a rubber, having oral sex, etc, etc)? I say no, and I don't need a paragraph to say so.
A question, not just for you, but for everyone: Is there really any moral difference between NFP and "artificial" birth control?
NFP can be described as an attempt to greatly reduce the possibility of pregnancy, without entirely removing the procreative aspect of sex. After all, NFP isn't absolutely 100% effective.
Social conservatives point out that most "artificial" methods of birth control are not 100% effective at preventing contraception.
If that's the case, couldn't one claim that using an imperfect, "artificial" form of birth control is morally equivalent to using an imperfect, natural method? In both cases, people are trying to reduce the chances of pregnancy. In both, there is still some chance of pregnancy, so they can't be said to be completely severing the possibility of creating life. It's just that the "artifical" method is better at meeting the couple's needs.
Agree, or disagree?
(I'll set aside for a moment the distinction between "artificial" and "natural," as both use science and technology not available to primitive man.)
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.