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 ...
So you don't really have a dog in this fight? I would hope so.
The belief that all private actions have public consequences, combined with the belief that all public consequences are subject to public decisionmaking, leads down the dark road to totalitarianism.
It's not an ad hominem attack, it's a historical comparison. Sorry if a historical appreciation of your position makes you uncomfortable.
NYT pushing the Martha BUrk style of feminism.
Homosexual Marriage is only about sex so this must be somehow related to the NYT pushing for something along those lines.
The ABA advocates that children are only an accessory to the marriage with the marriage devoted to the sexual gratification of the (more than two?) the adults comprising it.
Are you suggesting that the trend towards accepting contraception is a step back for humanity? If anything, I would think that the ability for us to control our reproductive outcomes would put us ABOVE the level of animals, who are helpless and unable to separate the act of sex from reproduction.
Good. We'll get along just fine, friend. :-)
BTW, I agree with the need for a robust population. I just don't buy into the whole "Lambeth Conference spelled the doom of civilization." Correlation, maybe, but not necessarily causation.
Since we are on the topic, do not forget all those so-called Christians that use antibiotics.
Generally though, I do not worry too much. Since God is smarter and nature is more powerful, none of these contraptions of man will work anyway.
Old Professor only speaks in hyperbole, allegory, metaphor, red-herring, straw man and non-sequitor. Perhaps if you could re-phrase the question?
non-sequitor = non sequitur
I agree, to the extent that the checks and balances include the idea of limited, delegated government powers.
If we do not include that idea, the case is different. For example, let's say that instead of granting the government only limited, specific powers, we accept that the state may act on things that have public consequence, for the good of society. Since anything can be shown to have a consequence on society, anything falls under the scope of government control. This is the very definition of totalitarianism.
Now, it doesn't necessarily have to be a dictatorial totalitarianism. It might even be argued to be a benign totalitarianism. But if every facet of life falls under the scrutiny of the state, it IS totalitarianism.
Oops. I meant to say "conception."
One can be a social Conservative and be a libertarian (small l, like I am, more or less), in fact, I think many are, which makes it all the more ironic that they are accused of being 'pornography lovers' and 'drug users' etc... Just like liberals accuse conservatives of being 'cruel hearted' and 'greedy'... :)
However, sociallly conservative libertarians understand that when government is used to attempt to achieve the goals of social conservatism, the end results are the opposite of their intentions. Instead of more morality, there is now less morality. The people will, in large part, voluntarily choose morality if they are just left alone.
Just like liberals and their economic 'social programs', Big Government Social Conservates have 'good intentions', whatever those are worth, but simply, IMO, don't understand history, the nature of government, or have enough respect for liberty:
"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."
- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown
Society is nothing more than the sum of the individuals contained within it. Therefore, the state ALWAYS serves individuals, though not always the individuals it claims to be serving.
Anyone who claims to be using the state to serve society is merely attempting to obfuscate which individuals it is that the state is ultimately serving.
My whole point in my argument is simply that all actions DO have consquences. Even bening acts that we think are nobody's business have public policy implications. To argue otherwise is to live in a utopian dreamland.
When not obstructed by warlords, despots, liberal manipulators or just plain ignorant collectivists, people have always proven to be quite adept at feeding themselves.
>>In the end the framers were right, many assume if it is not clearly enumerated its not a right, when thats simply not the case. Unless the constitution gives the government a right to regulated something, it is unconstitutional to regulate that act.<<
I hope you are not expecting me to disagree.
It is the consequence of living in a modern plugged in society. Everything we do is with modern technology an intrusion into our autonomy. A gaucho on the Pampas of my native Argentina who practically lives in the 19th century (even though the govt. is authoritarian) has in effect more freedom than I do.
We may be close to totalitarianism, but we aren't quite there...yet. There are still some areas of life that are not subject to state control. I can not be prohibited, for example, from publicly persuading young men not to join the armed forces, even though my activity has profound public consequences. (I will admit that the trend seems to be decreasing these areas of personal freedom.)
Furthermore, there is a profound difference between private surveillance and state control. I have the option to not use an internet browser, not accept a Visa card, or not shop in a store that will videotape me. I do NOT have the option to disobey a state edict. No corporation in this country can compel me to do something without first obtaining my consent in one form or another. The state can, and does. Totalitarianism doesn't have to mean secret police or harsh punishment. It just means that anything is subject to state control.
My whole point in my argument is simply that all actions DO have consquences. Even bening acts that we think are nobody's business have public policy implications. To argue otherwise is to live in a utopian dreamland.
I agree with you here. I fully accept that just about every decision I make can have some effect on someone, somewhere. I agree that "no man is an island", I just don't think that gives society the right to control every aspect of his life. I believe we are in agreement on this as well.
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.