Posted on 05/20/2002 5:43:35 PM PDT by JMJ333
You complain of rage.
An observation, subjective, perhaps meaningless, yet possibly intimating the truth.
I do not read, I listen to to FR. The greatest rage on this thread seems to emanate from you.
"stick it"? Download a text to speech engine and see for yourself.
I questioned your assertion noted above:
Are you saying, "Let's hurry and kill all the babies in 3rd world countries before they die of malnutrition or something else?"
You then responded: No. I was making a different point: That contributing to the suffering of others and/or being indifferent to it are manifestations of "devalueing human life". I used that as a comparison that life is "devalued" in other cultures besides our own.
Lorraine, of course life is devalued in other cultures, but your "circular" argument is incongruous.
Please tell me how our society values human life more than other societies and cultures when we have legalized and conducted the murder of over 30 million babies? We have to be the leaders, tragically, in the dehumanization of life.
Please don't take offense when opinions and sentiments are attributed to you. It is the result of your very transparent argument. One manifestation of a transparent argument is the writer's insistence on turning the focus away from the crux of the article posted.
I will not hypothesize on your personal sentiments in the future, but I would rather you stay focused on the topic of this thread, or begin your own thread to discuss the object of your interest.
Regards
Post #57 only mentions one date Aug 15, 1930. What is the time frame of for comparison of how human life was valued BEFORE contraception was widely accepted vs. how human life is valued AFTER contraception was widely accepted.
Lori--I am not going to do your work for you. Go to the article, find the paragraph and read from there. That said, I have no confidence that you will comprehend it. This is like pounding sand. The bottom line is that you are pro-contraception and will not accept the truth that it has led to abortion--if you can't understand that is a specific devaluing of life, nothing more I could ever say will convince you.
Regards.
I'm sorry that you can't understand it that people who aren't practicing Catholics and have an agenda to destroy the church from within have made their way to positions of power in my church. The infiltration goes to the American heirarchy, I am glad they are being exposed. The reform that stems from this will onlt strengthen my church. If you really want to understand what is going on...read this thread.
Let's hope you or your spouse doesn't get impotent. Your view of marital commitment doesn't seem to extend beyond mutual sexual self-gratification.
Mind your own bloody business. One thing I find extremely distasteful in the religiously pre-occupied is how they feel entitled to invade the privacy of everybody and anybody, total strangers, working acquaintences, whoever. Anyone is fair game. It's irritating beyond belief.
It is perfectly acceptable in an ethical debate to point out how totally unworkable an advocated lifestyle position may be.
This is the kind of question only a sexless alien or a sentient robot would ask. I am flabbergasted that any adult would be able to ask it.
A fallacious Ad Hominem attack followed by a quick dodge of the question.
If you derive no happiness from the sex, bonding and intimacy with that absolutely necessary other without whom life is not worth living, then you need some serious professional help.
Most people can and will live without sex. The alternative you advocate is in itself a potentially self destructive addiction that is widely regarded as needing the "professional help" you refer to.
Read the Declaration of Independence. It deals with rational self interest, and if you think that's hedonism, then you need to go back to the 8th grade.
You must be referring to the French revolution. Our Declaration of Independence dealt with enlightened self interest. The hedonism you that you seem to be advocating is, at its core, the ideology holding that the only good is in seeking pleasure. It is not a sustainable philosophy.
?...is something your 8th grade English teacher should call you out on. I hope that you are a junior high school student and not of voting age.
Just more Ad Hominems. Throughout your comments here you have advocated the pursuit of sexual self gratification as the supreme objective of human happiness and as a necessary condition for a fulfilling existence. The sad irony of this hedonistic view is that the singular pursuit of your own happiness and self-gratification will ultimately leave you with neither.
I'm sorry you can't understand the concept of people gunning for the destruction of my church from within and without. Yes, the "smoke of satan" infiltrated long ago...beginning with the revelation that Leo XIII had. This doesn't change the fact that our doctrine is sound and no one..neither from within or without is strong enough to destroy her. Sorry to disappoint you.
In testing a time based assertion, the control group needs to be similar to the test group except for the introduced change. In this case we would want to look at groups that were similar except for the advent of wide spread acceptance of contraception. Your list of cultural ills in post #66 all relate to cultures that were markedly different from the West even before contraceptive use was accepted here. In addition, there have been other major unrelated cultural introductions during this period. Until you compensate for these differences, any causation based on the comparison is meritless.
The fact is that contraception is not part of their culture and yet .... individual lives are NOT valued in the same way they are in our culture which does embrace contraceptives. What are we to do with this dissonance between the premise presented and the facts?
This is why cross cultural comparisons are seldom used in attempting to explain this kind of effect causation. Mechanical explanations, such as in the original article, are more effectively examined by using time-series studies within a single test culture. Personal empirical evidence should not be brought into a discussion unless the bearer can properly defend it in a constructive way. I suggest you look for previously published studies if you would like to add meaningful facts to a discussion like this.
What occurred during the period was an exponential prevalence of psychiatric diagnostic categories that were comparatively rare during the '40s and '50s and which is discussed in the psychiatric and psychoanalytic literature. In brief simplification the childrearing and adolescent developmental environment produced a generation of Bill and Hillary Clintons.
To ascribe this as having been the result of contraception is what could be charitably termed unfortunate. Such modes of thinking, particularly integrated into aggressive Christian sermonizing, contribute to an image of conservativism as a repressive crackpot cult. To the extent such thinking exists within a certain conservative axis, that axis of crackpot cults of repressed people are doing us all a great disservice.
That's a false dilemma. The answer is both, sex can be fun but it should be open to procreation.
I got this far in the essay. There has always been many people who have used the act of sex as a means of gratification in and out of marriage. The Bible describes sex outside of marriage as sin. Humans are sinful beings, and have always been so.
Now, our children have the freedom to indulge in sex. Our sexual mores have changed. It is the now the custom for kids to begin engaging in sex almost from grade school.
What should be a means of bonding between one man and one woman has been perverted. Perverting the natural is what man does best. Sin has it's consequences, but people do not believe in consequences or sin. They view their actions as normal and god-given rights. They do not believe in moralism or standards. The people suffer and society suffers for these sins. The consequences are being seen now in the decay of our society.
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.