Posted on 10/23/2010 1:50:52 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
Until the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 no Christian denomination had ever said that contraception could ever be objectively right. The Washington Post, in an editorial on March 22, 1931, said of the Federal Council of Churches' endorsement of Lambeth:
“It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of or suppression of human life. The Church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the ‘ scientific’ production of human souls.
Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report, if carried into effect, would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be ‘ careful and restrained’ is preposterous.”
Dude is a Christian version of a Muslim. Don't let it bug ya.
“Is anyone going to argue that this is permitted by the Bible even though it’s widespread?”
No one has, have they?
Actually, I haven't said that.
Who said they could not regulate drugs? Buying into your own “mindreading” about me being a supposed libertarian so much now that you are basing your arguments (twice) upon such a delusion?
If you are going to fling a mind-reading accusation, at least learn what it means. As I said earlier, a question CANNOT be mind-reading.
And I brought up the 1st Amendment to illustrate the FACT that our right to free speech means nothing if State law is under no requirement to recognize that right.
Of course, that's covered by the 14th Amendment.
Two centuries ago people thought that State laws outlawing interracial marriage was compatible with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of mankind. That thinking carried on for a long time until quite recently actually when it was found to be Unconstitutional - do you think their finding was in error, and do you think it should be a matter for States rights?
Of course I disagree with such laws.
Are you avoiding answering my question about what should happen when Roe v. Wade is overturned?
A question can be an attempt at “mindreading” quite easily. The question mark at the end doesn't change it. If I read your posts and then say “are you a Communists?”, I am attempting to read your philosophy from your comments and conclude that you are a Communist. Moreover you seem to have jumped right over my answer to that question in the negative, and based your arguments on the assumption that I am in fact a libertarian - to the extent that you further attempted to mindread me and assumed I was against the Federal regulation of drugs.
Covered by the 14th, of course, but in existence long before that under the concept of the natural rights of man. The 14th didn't CREATE the obligation for a non-tyrannous State government to observe our natural rights, it RECOGNIZED the obligation.
If you disagree with such laws, then clearly basing what is and is not consistent with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of man has little to do with what laws were in place in the past - and the argument must stand or fall upon its own merits.
If Roe v Wade were overturned, the issue would be up to the States.
Women crossing state lines to get an abortion performed would then have an effect upon interstate commerce! ;)
When I was raising my kids, one of my girlfriends had 9 another close neighbor also had 5 like me and she was baptist. Years later we laughed about that when I told her that I told my priest that I knew she was catholic cause she had 5 kids..... I think casual conversation as you talk about is quite different than a in depth discussion on why you don't use BC with a stranger.. Its still no one's business except the 2 involved...
For me just the though of discussing someones BC without an invitation to discuss it is stupid. It also is not for me to judge if they do or don't....
Your answer has no judgmental aspects to it...and was a delight to read....7 makes you more experienced than me with only 5. They are all in their late 40's to early 50's and have given me 13 most excellent grandchildren....
PS If any one made a comment to me like your #1, they'd get a not so pleasant ear-full...
That's odd, in post #103 you wrote:
I don't believe the State has any authority to abridge amend or fail to recognize the natural rights of man. That which is forbidden to the Federal Government in recognition of our natural rights, is similarly forbidden to the State Government.
Then in post #124 you wrote:
Covered by the 14th, of course, but in existence long before that under the concept of the natural rights of man. The 14th didn't CREATE the obligation for a non-tyrannous State government to observe our natural rights, it RECOGNIZED the obligation.
Tell me, do you consider contracteption and sodomy to be "natural rights," but not life? Why would someone support pro-choice by state if they believe in natural rights?
Nonsense, it is asking a question.
The question mark at the end doesn't change it. If I read your posts and then say “are you a Communists?”, I am attempting to read your philosophy from your comments and conclude that you are a Communist.
If I had made comments that were somehow consistent with communist ideology you would be justified. The reality is that you HAVE made many comments on this thread that are typical of libertarians, so it makes perfect sense that someone would ask.
Moreover you seem to have jumped right over my answer to that question in the negative, and based your arguments on the assumption that I am in fact a libertarian - to the extent that you further attempted to mindread me and assumed I was against the Federal regulation of drugs.
Perhaps I wasn't clear on drugs in that statement, I was referring to birth control pills.
So, you believe that America's adoption of non-judgemental permissiveness over the last several decades has been a positive development?
Do you? I do not.
I think people have a natural right to be free from unreasonable government interference, in other words, that there needs to be a compelling government interest in regulation of something, that the regulation needs to be under an enumerated power, and that the regulation be consistent with a limited government that recognizes the natural rights of man.
If you think that a Government that outlaws contraception is consistent with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of man, just say so.
Huh? You said that abortion should be returned to the states. That means that each state would get to decide whether or not to kill babies and that IS NOT protecting natural rights.
I think people have a natural right to be free from unreasonable government interference, in other words, that there needs to be a compelling government interest in regulation of something, that the regulation needs to be under an enumerated power, and that the regulation be consistent with a limited government that recognizes the natural rights of man.
Oh? Do you consider protecting innocent life to be "unreasonable government interference"? Because I certainly HAVE heard libertarians advance that argument before.
If you think that a Government that outlaws contraception is consistent with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of man, just say so.
I have yet to see where it has been established that man has a natural right to contraception.
bookmark
Man need not have a natural right to contraception for the Government outlawing of contraception to be an abridgment of natural rights and inconsistent with a Government of limited and enumerated powers.
But I find it amusing that amid the HUE and CRY about me daring to suggest that anyone here was FOR laws against contraception - we find those who argue against the decisions that struck down laws against contraception - and you arguing that such a law would not be an abridgment of our natural rights.
But how DARE I suggest that you might actually be for laws against contraception! Just because you find them compatible with recognition of our natural rights, and others argue with appeal to consequences about how the decisions to strike down such laws were wrong!
Where could I possibly come up with such an outlandish idea?
Amusing!!!!
Good luck convincing 75% of Americans that what they do in their bedroom is “evil” and subject to Government regulation! If you can make that argument while simultaneously arguing for a limited Government of enumerated powers that respects the natural rights of man I would be REALLY impressed.
Rude comments deserve rude replies,* like mind your own damn business idiot*...:O) and keep on walkin.....
Right, since I know of no one that can be a mind reader of Gods mind, its above all our pay grades...
So, you believe that America's adoption of non-judgemental permissiveness over the last several decades has been a positive development?
**************************************
For what it's worth, I agree with goat granny's first statement. Imho, it is the height of boorishness to inquire into another's private life.
However, also imho, we had better begin deciding whether certain behaviour is right or wrong, or our society will continue on its downward path.
So you’ve changed your position on the level of interference that government has in our lives?
Seems that I recall several topics where you advocate very strongly for big government control in several areas.
perhaps the writers of the old testament and early christian writers did not have access to that recent discovery....To use an obscure writing like that to extend to the idea of contraception is wrong is quite a stretch...and to quote other human. ie: Catholic saints is also not valid, they may have been greatly spiritual, but still speak with a fallible human voice, just as any philosopher does...
Nice that you acknowledge that here at least I am arguing consistently for a small government of limited and enumerated powers consistent with the natural rights of man - presumably while others are not.
Thanks!
If you ddin’t understand what I wrote, go back and read it again.
The medical implications for your sister is having a miscarriage, or a physically and/or mentally handicapped child.
The medical implications of my wife having a child would be death to her and maybe reath to her and the child.
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.