Posted on 07/24/2014 12:32:39 PM PDT by wagglebee
My BIL felt this way about children. He didn’t want to share his wife with them.
So my sister is childless.
Imagine a Venn diagram: “birth control” includes all means of preventing birth. “Contraception”, is a sub-set of birth control; whereby conception is prevented. Abortion is a sub-set of birth control; whereby conception takes place, but the embryo is “terminated” sometime prior to birth. There is absolutely no overlap between contraception and abortion.
If you have trouble with that concept; try differentiating between “up” and “down”, or “day” and “night” for practice.
Yeah, but for people like that who are dedicated to not breeding, they should just get themselves fixed to avoid having to murder their own offspring.
You nigh have trouble with ‘mindset’ whereby a relationship, and subsequently, the community and then culture, industry and politics, if the idea is powerful enough, is set on birth control
Abortion comes from that
So do a lot of other consequences. Just ask and answer, where is the quisling husband in all of this? It’s just she who is selfish in our new world order. He gets to live the life of a 17 year old boy, with societal approval. That’s birth control.
The philosophers and theologians are of that theory.
To start:
Why wouldn't she let somebody adopt the baby who would love him? Has she no family, no friends, no imgination of the joy that would bring, joy for generations to come?
Now, no joy, and an eternity of horror.
It’s not really a “bright side,” but gallows humor has served my people well in troubling times.
There were joke competitions in Auschwitz, you know.
The underlying attitudes lead to murder
Some afternoon philosophy for you
yeah, i suppose so.
Ugly SOUL, UGLY FACE. God will NOT be mocked.
WHY did my GAYDAR go off looking at the “husband”??
Let’s check back in a few years—likely he’ll be cheating on her...
I regretted the snark in my post, right after sending it.
However, terminology does matter — and your original post was phrased as a question about terminology. We saw, in the Hobby Lobby brouhaha, how the other side plays fast and loose with terminology. They deliberately drew no distinction between “contraceptives” and “abortifacients” — either lumping them together in the super-set of “birth control” (which you did also), or completely mislabeling “abortifacients” as “contraceptives” (which are not the same thing at all).
Other than the problem with terminology, I agree with you.
I lump them all together as the Church does, they all come from the same mode of thinking, the same addictions and all lead to the same ends.
The other side sees it that way as well.
This side can NOT win in a state of moral relativism. The other side will take advantage of that weakness every time, and that’s what is going on.
The theologians and Christian philosophers state that birth control is evil, leads to evil and cannot be adhered to without great consequences.
That’s what you’re seeing.
This is a surprisingly short read. It takes a bit of concentration, but it is logical, so it is available. It was published in 1968.
Just read it.
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.