Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Birth Control and Eugenics are identical - Margaret Sanger
PGA Weblog ^

Posted on 02/17/2012 7:24:43 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica

In an article titled "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda" in the Birth Control Review, Margaret Sanger wrote the following:(Page 43)

The eugenic and civilizational value of Birth Control is becoming apparent to the enlightened and the intelligent. In the limited space of the present paper, I have time only to touch upon some of the fundamental convictions that form the basis of our Birth Control propaganda, and which, as I think you must agree, indicate that the campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aims of Eugenics.

I have made it a point to immerse myself in the history of progressivism so that I could demonstrate and display it for others, but eugenics is one of those things that's so profoundly evil that it leaves me absent for words. Nearly the entirety of the second half of this short article is quotable:

The almost universal demand for practical education in Birth Control is one of the most hopeful signs that the masses themselves today possess the divine spark of regeneration. It remains for the courageous and the enlightened to answer this demand, to kindle the spark, to direct a thorough education in Eugenics based upon this intense interest.

Birth Control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the Eugenic educator. In answering the needs of these thousands upon thousands of submerged mothers, it is possible to use this interest as the foundation for education in prophylaxis, sexual hygiene, and infant welfare. The potential mother is to be shown that maternity need not be slavery but the most effective avenue toward self-development and self-realization. Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race.

As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit", admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

Birth Control is not advanced as a panacea by which past and present evils of dysgenic breeding can be magically eliminated. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism.

But to prevent the repetition, to effect the salvation of the generations of the future–nay of the generations of today–our greatest need is first of all the ability to face the situation without flinching, and to cooperate in the formation of a code of sexual ethics based upon a thorough biological and psychological understanding of human nature; and then to answer the questions and the needs of the people with all the intelligence and honesty at our command. If we can summon the bravery to do this, we shall best be serving the true interests of Eugenics, because our work will then have a practical and pragmatic value.

Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics.


TOPICS: Education
KEYWORDS: contraception; eugenics; margaretsanger; moralabsolutes; plannedparenthood; progressingamerica; prolife; sanger

1 posted on 02/17/2012 7:24:48 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: iceskater; surroundedbyblue; DuncanWaring; Hemingway's Ghost; bigheadfred; GladesGuru; ...
If anybody wants on/off the revolutionary progressivism ping list, send me a message

Progressives do not want to discuss their own history. I want to discuss their history.

2 posted on 02/17/2012 7:26:18 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica (What's the best way to reach a you tube generation? Put it on you tube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

This conflation of birth control and abortion plays right into the abortionists’ hands.


3 posted on 02/17/2012 7:26:46 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle; little jeremiah

May be of interest.............


4 posted on 02/17/2012 7:27:54 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica (What's the best way to reach a you tube generation? Put it on you tube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica; Dr. Brian Kopp

Placemark for later pingout.


5 posted on 02/17/2012 7:29:59 AM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Great logo!


6 posted on 02/17/2012 7:32:12 AM PST by newfreep (I am a "terrorist". I am Sarah Palin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DManA
The Connection between Contraception and Abortion

by JANET SMITH

Many in the pro-life movement are reluctant to make a connection between contraception and abortion. They insist that these are two very different acts — that there is all the difference in the world between contraception, which prevents a life from coming to be and abortion, which takes a life that has already begun.

With some contraceptives there is not only a link with abortion there is an identity. Some contraceptives are abortifacients; they work by causing early term abortions. The IUD seems to prevent a fertilized egg — a new little human being — from implanting in the uterine wall. The pill does not always stop ovulation but sometimes prevents implantation of the growing embryo. And, of course, the new RU 486 pill works altogether by aborting a new fetus, a new baby. Although some in the pro-life movement occasional speak out against the contraceptives that are abortifacients most generally steer clear of the issue of contraception.

This seems to me to be a mistake. I think that we will not make good progress in creating a society where all new life can be safe, where we truly display a respect for life, where abortion is a terrible memory rather than a terrible reality until we see that there are many significant links between contraception and abortion and that we bravely speak this truth. We need to realize that a society in which contraceptives are widely used is going to have a very difficult time keeping free of abortions since the lifestyles and attitudes that contraception fosters create an alleged "need" for abortion.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the recent Supreme Court decision that confirmed Roe v. Wade, stated, "in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception . . . . for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."

The Supreme Court decision has made completely unnecessary any efforts to "expose" what is really behind the attachment of the modern age to abortion. As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles. It is not because contraceptives are ineffective that a million and half women a year seek abortions as back-ups to failed contraceptives. The "intimate relationships" facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions "necessary". "Intimate" here is a euphemism and a misleading one at that. Here the word "intimate" means "sexual"; it does not mean "loving and close." Abortion is most often the result of sexual relationships in which there is little true intimacy and love, in which there is no room for a baby, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse. Contraception enables those who are not prepared to care for babies, to engage in sexual intercourse; when they become pregnant, they resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives and they turn to the solution of abortion.

Contraception currently is hailed as the solution to the problems consequent on the sexual revolution; many believe that better contraceptives and more responsible use of contraceptives will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions and will prevent to some extent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

To support the argument that more responsible use of contraceptives would reduce the number of abortions, some note that most abortions are performed for "contraceptive purposes". That is, few abortions are had because a woman has been a victim of rape or incest or because a pregnancy would endanger her life, or because she expects to have a handicapped or deformed newborn. Rather, most abortions are had because men and women who do not want a baby are having sexual intercourse and facing pregnancies they did not plan for and do not want. Because their contraceptive failed, or because they failed to use a contraceptive, they then resort to abortion as a back-up. Many believe that if we could convince men and women to use contraceptives responsibly we would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus the number of abortions. Thirty years ago this position might have had some plausibility, but not now. We have lived for about thirty years with a culture permeated with contraceptive use and abortion; no longer can we think that greater access to contraception will reduce the number of abortions. Rather, wherever contraception is more readily available the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions increases greatly.

The connection between contraception and abortion is primarily this: contraception facilitates the kind of relationships and even the kind of attitudes and moral characters that are likely to lead to abortion. The contraceptive mentality treats sexual intercourse as though it had little natural connection with babies; it thinks of babies as an "accident" of pregnancy, as an unwelcome intrusion into a sexual relationship, as a burden. The sexual revolution has no fondness — no room for — the connection between sexual intercourse and babies. The sexual revolution simply was not possible until fairly reliable contraceptives were available.

Far from being a check to the sexual revolution, contraception is the fuel that facilitated the beginning of the sexual revolution and enables it to continue to rage. In the past, many men and women refrained from illicit sexual unions simply because they were not prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood. But once a fairly reliable contraceptive appeared on the scene, this barrier to sex outside the confines of marriage fell. The connection between sex and love also fell quickly; ever since contraception became widely used, there has been much talk of, acceptance of, and practice of casual sex and recreational sex. The deep meaning that is inherent in sexual intercourse has been lost sight of; the willingness to engage in sexual intercourse with another is no longer a result of a deep commitment to another. It no longer bespeaks a willingness to have a child with another and to have all the consequent entanglements with another that babies bring. Contraception helps reduce one's sexual partner to just a sexual object since it renders sexual intercourse to be without any real commitments. Certainly one can easily imagine how attractive abortion would be in the face of a contraceptive failure — one has made not commitment to one's sexual partner or exacted one, so how can one expect one's self or one's sexual partner to take on the responsibility of raising a child. Some clinics report that up to 50% of the abortions are of pregnancies that resulted from contraceptive failure.

Furthermore, the casualness with which sexual unions are now entered is accompanied by a casualness and carelessness in the use of contraceptives. Studies show that the women having abortions are very knowledgeable about birth control methods; the great majority — eighty per cent — are experienced contraceptors but they display carelessness and indifference in their use of contraception for a variety of reasons. Contraception has enabled them to enter a sexual relationship or a life style, but while the relationship or life style continues the contraceptive practice does not continue..

One researcher reports the reasons why sexually active, contraceptively experienced women stop contracepting: she observes that some have broken up with their sexual partners and believe they will no longer need a contraceptive but they find themselves sexually active anyway. Others dislike the physical exam required for the pill, or dislike the side-effects of the pill and some are deterred by what inconvenience or difficulty there is in getting contraceptives. Many unmarried women do not like to think of themselves as sexually active; using contraceptives conflicts with their preferred self-image. The failure to use birth control is a sign that many women are not comfortable with being sexually active. That is, many of the women are engaged in an activity that, for some reason, they do not wish to admit to themselves.

One researcher, Kristin Luker, a pro-abortion social scientist, in a book entitled Taking Chances: Abortion and the Decision not to Contracept attempted to discover why, with contraceptives so widely available, so many women, virtually all knowledgeable about contraception, had unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The conclusions of her studies suggest that it is not simple "carelessness" or "irresponsibility" that lead women to have abortions, but that frequently the pregnancies that are aborted are planned or the result of a calculated risk. She begins by dismissing some of the commonly held views about why women get abortions; she denies that they are usually had by panic-stricken youngsters or that they are had by unmarried women who would otherwise have had illegitimate births. She also maintains that statistics do not show that abortion is an act of final desperation used by poor women and "welfare mothers" or that abortion is often sought by women who have more children than they can handle. What she attempts to discern is what reason women had for not using contraception although they were contraceptively experienced and knew the risks involved in not using contraception. Luker seeks to substantiate in her study that "unwanted pregnancy is the end result of an informed decision-making process. That pregnancy occurred anyway, for the women in this study, is because most of them were attempting to achieve more diffuse goals than simply preventing pregnancy."

Luker argues that for these women (women who are having non-contracepted sex, but who are not intending to have babies), using contraceptives has certain "costs" and getting pregnant has certain "benefits". The women make a calculation that the benefits of not using contraception and the benefits of a pregnancy outweigh the risks of getting pregnant and the need to have an abortion. She concurs that many women prefer "spontaneous sex" and do not like thinking of themselves as "sexually active". She notes that some wondered whether or not they were fertile and thus did not take contraceptives. The "benefits" of a pregnancy for many women were many; pregnancy proves "that one is a woman", or that one is fertile; it provides an excuse for "forcing a definition in the relationship"; it forces a woman's or girl's parents to deal with her"; it is used as a "psychological organizing technique."

In the end, almost all of the unmarried women Luker interviewed had the option to marry (and supposedly to complete the pregnancy) but none chose this option. Luker attributes this to unwillingness of women to get married under such conditions, to the disparity between this kind of marriage and their fantasy marriage, and to their belief that they were responsible for the pregnancy, and thus they had no claim on the male's support. One of her examples is of an unmarried woman who did not like using the pill because it made her gain weight. Coupled with this was her wish to force her boyfriend to openly admit his relationship with her to his parents who rejected her, and possibly to force marriage and thus she decided not to use contraception. Upon becoming pregnant, this woman had an abortion.

Much of this data suggests that there is something deep in our natures that finds the severing of sexual intercourse from love and commitment and babies to be unsatisfactory. As we have seen, women are careless in their use of contraceptives for a variety of reasons, but one reason for their careless use of contraceptives is precisely their desire to engage in meaningful sexual activity rather than in meaningless sexual activity. They want their sexual acts to be more meaningful than a handshake or a meal shared. They are profoundly uncomfortable with using contraceptives for what they do to their bodies and for what they do to their relationships. Often, they desire to have a more committed relationship with the male with whom they are involved; they get pregnant to test his love and commitment. But since the relationship has not been made permanent, since no vows have been taken, they are profoundly ambivalent about any pregnancy that might occur. They are very likely to abort a pregnancy they may even have desired. It may sound far-fetched to claim that some women may in some sense "plan" or "desire" the very pregnancies that they abort but this analysis is borne out by studies done by pro-abortion sociologists.

Contraception clearly leads to many abortions by those who have sex outside of marriage. Even within marriage, those who contracept are more likely to abort than those who do not, especially those who use NFP. It is easy to understand why contraceptors would be more likely to abort. Those using contraception who get pregnant unexpectedly, are generally very angry, since they did everything they could to prevent a pregnancy. The pregnancy is seen as a crisis. The married have often planned a life that is not receptive to children and are tempted to abort to sustain the child-free life they have designed. I am not, of course, saying that all those who contracept are likely to abort; I am saying that many more of those who contracept do abort than those who practice natural family planning.

It should be no surprise that unlike contraceptors, those using methods of natural family planning are highly unlikely to resort to abortion should an unplanned pregnancy occur. Some argue that couples using natural family planning are as closed to having babies as are those that use contraceptives; that they too wish to engage in "baby-free" sexual intercourse. But the crucial difference is that those using NFP are not engaging in an act whose nature they wish to thwart; they are keeping to the principles of sexual responsibility. Their sexual acts remain as open to procreation as nature permits. They are refraining from sexual intercourse when they know they may conceive and engaging in sexual intercourse when they are unable to conceive — precisely because of their desire to be responsible about their child-bearing.

It should be no surprise that countries that are permeated by contraceptive sex, fight harder for access to abortion than they do to ensure that all babies can survive both in the womb and out. It is foolish for pro-lifers to think that they can avoid the issues of contraception and sexual irresponsibility and be successful in the fight against abortion. For, as the Supreme Court stated, abortion is "necessary" for those whose intimate relationships are based upon contraceptive sex.

— Janet Smith is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Dallas.


7 posted on 02/17/2012 7:33:25 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Does this mean that condoms are out?


8 posted on 02/17/2012 7:37:47 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

It is interesting that Sanger’s strategy was to make it a Catholic issue back in the 20’s, which she did successfully culminating in the 1930 Lambeth Conference declaration.

However, 2012 is not 1920 when it comes to how Catholics are viewed. I think we saw that when the SBC stepped in an said they were willing to go jail.


9 posted on 02/17/2012 7:38:52 AM PST by Pete (29thday.org Exponential problems require exponential solutions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

We were making progress with Americans on abortion.

This new belligerence toward birth control will reverse that. Probably forever.


10 posted on 02/17/2012 7:39:26 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

there is birth control that aborts and birth control that does not....

if it does not...

it is not murder and it is not an issue in my world.


11 posted on 02/17/2012 7:41:33 AM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: ProgressingAmerica; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


13 posted on 02/17/2012 7:46:22 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

There can be no real progress on abortion as long as its root cause, the embrace of the contraceptive mentality, is not addressed.

Every culture that has embraced the contraceptive mentality has, within one to two generations, legalized abortion, without exception.


14 posted on 02/17/2012 7:48:52 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Yea. that’s what they are saying. Can you believe it?


15 posted on 02/17/2012 7:52:01 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Every culture that has embraced the contraceptive mentality has, within one to two generations, legalized abortion, without exception.

So that means no sex with my wife unless I want a child?

16 posted on 02/17/2012 7:57:23 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Can you believe it?

Unfortunately ....

17 posted on 02/17/2012 7:58:15 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

California is now in such great fiscal shape, they decided to start a new program.
“State launches mail-order condom program for teens”
http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x1608245334/State-launches-mail-order-condom-program-for-teens


18 posted on 02/17/2012 8:01:19 AM PST by twistedwrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica
Upon this basis only may we improve the quality of the race.

Where have I seen this before.....?

19 posted on 02/17/2012 8:06:55 AM PST by submarinerswife (Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results~Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

You might want to read this as well:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2845321/posts


20 posted on 02/17/2012 8:07:41 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica (What's the best way to reach a you tube generation? Put it on you tube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

“The enlightened and intelligent”

Hah!


21 posted on 02/17/2012 8:10:03 AM PST by vanilla swirl (We are the Patrick Henry we have been waiting for!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

-—it is not murder and it is not an issue in my world.-—

Don’t worry. No one is going to take away your means of inducing sterility.

The following is for anyone interested in honestly considering the natural law argument against methods of inducing temporary or permanent sterility.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html


22 posted on 02/17/2012 8:10:03 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp; wagglebee
There can be no real progress on abortion as long as its root cause, the embrace of the contraceptive mentality, is not addressed.

************************************

Agreed.

23 posted on 02/17/2012 8:12:19 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All

Again I say, if Conservatives EVER have a fair shot with the media and present their message in a straightforward, coherent manner, they will never lose another election.
If the average Joe knew that the Dems were in bed with monsters like Sanger, Soros, Wright, etc., the Dems would go the way of the Whig.


24 posted on 02/17/2012 8:18:28 AM PST by Maverick68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica
You might want to read this as well:

To what end? You are basically claiming that Birth Control is the same as Eugenics simply because leading proponents of Eugenics thought they could use the Campaign for Birth Control to thier own ends.

The logical conclusion of your campaign is that NO Birth Control should be available and that a man and his wife should only sleep with each other if they desire a child. I do not support that.

25 posted on 02/17/2012 8:22:23 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DManA; Dr. Brian Kopp
We were making progress with Americans on abortion.

What progress?

There are over 3500 abortions EACH DAY in America. That's a holocaust, not progress.

26 posted on 02/17/2012 8:25:47 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

ObamaCare Architect: Catholic Institutions Should Provide Birth Control as ‘Moral Imperative’ to Stop Population Growth
Excerpt from Big Government.com
by Joel B. Pollak Robert Creamer–Democrat strategist, Obama 2008 campaign aide, and political architect of ObamaCare–argues that the new contraceptive mandate for Catholic institutions isn’t really about equality for women, or religious liberty.

Rather, it is about population control.

Creamer–like his wife, the pro-abortion Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)–embraces the left-wing fallacy that children are a burden on the planet, which the state should encourage the church–and everyone else–to limit.

At 6:16-7:03 in the video below, by CNS News, Schakowsky describes abortion as “most often” a “responsible decision” to control the size of their families:

Writing in the Huffington Post yesterday, Creamer declared:

…[T]here is a worldwide consensus that the use of birth control is one of society’s most important moral priorities. Far from being something that should be discouraged, or is controversial, the use of birth control is critical to the survival and success of humanity….It is simply not possible for this small planet to sustain that kind of exponential human population growth. If we do, the result will be poverty, war, the depletion of our natural resources and famine. Fundamentally, the Reverend [Thomas] Malthus was right–except that the result is not inevitable….That’s why it is our moral imperative to act responsibly and encourage each other to use birth control.

Malthus’s late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century views, which still inspire much of today’s environmental movement, have been repeatedly disproved over the course of two centuries. Economic freedom, growth and innovation have made human society vastly more productive and efficient.

It is precisely because radical socialists like Creamer, Schakowsky and Obama detest the free economy that they continue to rely on old Malthusian and Marxist ideas.

Regardless, the indication by Creamer that the contraception mandate is not about “equality,” but population growth, suggests that the Obama administration’s challenge to the beliefs of the Catholic church may be more direct–and deliberate–than was previously suspected.

My coment

Eugenics.,is a basic tenet of socialism which includes the whole range of the “isms”. The new religions created by Marx, Lennin, and Fascists that mandates its followers practice population control, through abortion or sterilization and of course “mercy killing”. By edict Obama has not just violated the constitution by imposing a set of practices and their accompanying expences refuted by a religious group but has also sought to impose a belief system which is a defacto religion on another religious group...The results of this edict has not only created deep divisions within the groups affected which begs the question of the intent of result by the edicts issuance.

Defenders of this action quickly point to the regime decision to do so as its right because they are recipients of government funds. Those defenders convieniently ignore the fact that members of the groups affected have originally contributed those funds and were exempted from paying such costs resulting from and observing such practices that are now imposed upon them by the Obama regime.


27 posted on 02/17/2012 8:29:01 AM PST by mosesdapoet ("The best way to punish a country is let professors run it. Fredrick the Great p/p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maverick68
Again I say, if Conservatives EVER have a fair shot with the media and present their message in a straightforward, coherent manner, they will never lose another election.

If the position outlined in this thread were to be published as "The Conservative Position" - conservatives would never WIN another election, except maybe in Vatican City.

28 posted on 02/17/2012 8:30:47 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

It’s additional context on her words and ideas. She only founded Planned Parenthood.

Besides, my issue isn’t with birth control itself. My concern is progressivism, see my blog postings if you doubt it. Birth control can stand on it’s own two feet without the cancer of progressivism subverting it for their own ends.

You have read me all wrong, as have others at other times. But I knew that would be the case, given how hard that progressives worked to make sure their own history remained unknown. The logical conclusion of my campaign is that people would be more cautious about their view of institutions that are progressive in nature. These people mean us harm, and their history proves it. Their chosen topic(in this instance, birth control) is merely a means to an end. You’re talking to me about the means, I would much rather discuss the end.


29 posted on 02/17/2012 8:43:12 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica (What's the best way to reach a you tube generation? Put it on you tube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
Don’t worry. No one is going to take away your means of inducing sterility

I am not worried...I agree that it is NOT the governments business to neither supply me with, nor prevent me from buying non-murder birth control.

30 posted on 02/17/2012 8:52:29 AM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

It’s also the sacrament of Radical Feminism. Or maybe that’s the same thing.


31 posted on 02/17/2012 8:53:39 AM PST by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA
new belligerence toward birth control

Nothing "new" about it:

Some history of Christian thought on Birth Control:

(Note: The quotes of the early church fathers can be researched in their entirety, courtesy of Calvin College.)

191 AD - Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children

"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted." (2:10:91:2) "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (2:10:95:3).

307 AD - Lactantius - Divine Institutes

"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . .or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (6:20)

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (6:23:18).

325 AD - Council of Nicaea I - Canon 1

"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated [sterilized] himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy"

375 AD - Epiphanius of Salamis - Medicine Chest Against Heresies

"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (26:5:2 ).

391 AD - John Chrysostom - Homilies on Matthew

"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]" (28:5).

393 AD - Jerome - Against Jovinian

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (1:19).

419 AD - Augustine - Marriage and Concupiscence

"I am supposing, then, although are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives] . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (1:15:17).

522 AD - Caesarius of Arles - Sermons

"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (1:12).

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) -

"Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."

John Calvin (1509 to 1564) -

Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.

John Wesley (1703 to 1791) -

"Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.

(Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non- procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox [protestant]theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it." )

In 1908 the Bishops of the Anglican Communion meeting at the Lambeth Conference declared, "The Conference records with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare."

The Lambeth Conference of 1930 produced a new resolution, "Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method..." but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, "the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles."

1930 AD - Pope Pius XI - Casti Conubii (On Christian Marriage)

"Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

1965 AD - Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World - Gaudium et Spes, Vatican II

Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. (51)

1968 AD - Pope Paul VI - Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life)

Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, propose, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible. To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life. (14)

1993 AD - Catechism of the Catholic Church

"The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception)." (2399)


32 posted on 02/17/2012 8:56:16 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica
She only founded Planned Parenthood.

Yes, that is well known.

You have read me all wrong, as have others at other times.

In that case, I offer my apologies.

33 posted on 02/17/2012 8:58:55 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
The logical conclusion of your campaign is that NO Birth Control should be available and that a man and his wife should only sleep with each other if they desire a child.

If you were right in your logical conclusion, then a couple couldn't have sex when the woman was not ovulating or post-menopausal, could they? Does anyone argue that? No.

That said, though, I agree with your other point that the whole reason the left is bringing this up is to redirect the conversation. We shouldn't take the bait--because bait it is. Never let the enemy choose your field of battle. If they steer the conversation to birth control, steer it RIGHT BACK to abortion and the first amendment.

34 posted on 02/17/2012 9:01:26 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Some history of Christian thought on Birth Control:

Actually that should read Catholic thought on Birth Control.

35 posted on 02/17/2012 9:04:25 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Claud
If you were right in your logical conclusion, then a couple couldn't have sex when the woman was not ovulating or post-menopausal, could they? Does anyone argue that? No.

Oh how magnanimous of you (and the church btw) for granting this exception.

36 posted on 02/17/2012 9:13:07 AM PST by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Really? Please illustrate ANY Christian writings that do not condemn birth control or permit the use of birth control prior to 1900.

Hint: don’t bother looking, they do not exist. No Christian writings, Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic, condoned contraception prior to 1900. I doubt you’ll find ANY prior to 1930, actually, but I’m being generous.


37 posted on 02/17/2012 9:16:44 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

38 posted on 02/17/2012 10:00:53 AM PST by rhema ("Break the conventions; keep the commandments." -- G. K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
Here's a thread from last fall that you really need to read:

Children of the Reformation: A Short & Surprising History of Protestantism & Contraception

And a related article:

Short history of Protestant contraception

Why did Protestants forbid contraception, side by side with Catholics, for 400 years, only to repudiate this teaching in the 20th century? Allan Carlson, a self-described “cradle Lutheran”, founder and president of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society, addresses this question in “Children of the Reformation“, the cover story of the new issue of Touchstone Magazine.


After establishing that Luther, Calvin, and Protestant leaders through the 19th century forbade contraception in the strongest terms, even equating it with homicide, Carlson notes that by getting rid of priestly celibacy, but retaining a ban on contraception, Protestants put the minister into a difficult situation. Protestant ministers were expected to divide their time between pastoral care, and caring for a large family. The Catholic priest, by comparison, was free of the worries and time constraints associated with wife and family, and consequently had more time to devote to study and to his parish congregation. (Whether the Protestant always attended to his family, or the Catholic to his studies with sufficient diligence, is of course another question.)

But while balancing theological study, pastoral care, and the management of a large family was at all times difficult for Protestant ministers, only in the late 19th century did circumstances arise that made it also financially unfeasible to raise a large family on a pastor’s income. So, Carlson argues, the break with tradition at the Lambeth Conference of 1930 was merely a public recognition of a practice that had long been observed within the homes of ministers themselves.

What exactly these “economic and cultural changes” were, he doesn’t specify. But it seems clear that in some cases contraceptive proponents had fallen under the spell of the pseudo-science of Malthusianism, and in other cases, “economy” and Malthusianism were useful pretexts for simply doing what one wanted. I reproduce here what is, to me, the most amazing part of the article:

In only three decades, the Lambeth Conference’s qualified approval would turn into full celebration. At the astonishing and deeply disturbing 1961 North American Conference on Church and Family, sponsored by the National Council of Churches (successor to the Federal Council), population-control advocate Lester Kirkendall argued that America had “entered a sexual economy of abundance” where contraception would allow unrestrained sexual experimentation.

Wardell Pomeroy of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research explained how the new science of sexology required the abandonment of all old moral categories. Psychologist Evelyn Hooker celebrated the sterile lives of homosexuals. Planned Parenthood’s Mary Calderone made the case for universal contraceptive use, while colleague Alan Guttmacher urged the reform of America’s “mean-spirited” anti-abortion laws.

Not a single voice in the spirit of Luther or Calvin could be heard at this “Christian conference.” Indeed, the conferees saw the traditional Protestant family ethic focused on exuberant marital fertility as the problem and the act that Luther, Calvin, and others had condemned as the obvious answer.

To the speakers at this conference, contraception is clearly linked with unlimited sexual freedom and the overturning of traditional morality. And also, as Guttmacher suggests, linked with abortion.

Abortion also provides Carlson with the conclusion to his essay: this “celebratory” attitude among Protestants regarding contraception has taken a new turn in recent years, due to their new (or newly intensified) pro-life position. This was exemplified by groups like Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and Concerned Women for America.”

At first, this pro-life Evangelicalism avoided the issue of contraception. However, over time, it has become ever more difficult for many to draw an absolute line between contraception and abortion, because—whatever theological distinctions they made between the two—the “contraceptive mentality” embraces both, and some forms of “contraception” are in practice abortifacients.

The piece ends with a roll-call of Protestant thinkers and groups who are “push[ing] back against the contraceptive culture”, and notes that this gets back to Protestant roots as well as shores up “a common Christian front” on the issue.

I wish I could know how this will play out, and whether Protestants of later generations will regard their 20th-century forebears’ embrace of contraception as a regrettable episode with consequences extending far beyond the Christian family.


39 posted on 02/17/2012 10:07:36 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

It has nothing to do with “exceptions”. If a married couple have a pressing need not to have children, they have every right to use the recourses nature made available to them: a) abstention, or b) infertile periods.

No one *ever* said that women *must* pump out children. What we have said is that it’s fundamentally idiotic to perform the act that makes children while at the same time deliberately, artificially frustrating its natural effect. It’s a sick psychological delusion that chases pleasure at the expense of reason.

It’s the sexual equivalent of stuffing your face and then sticking two fingers down your throat because you don’t want to gain weight.


40 posted on 02/17/2012 10:59:24 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica; 185JHP; narses; Salvation; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; APatientMan; Albion Wilde; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

I think this explains to a nicety why birth control is and has been a tool of the leftists since it first was advocated as "family planning". Leftists do say what they really think, just a little digging finds their own words damning them. Thank you, ProgressingAmerica.

41 posted on 02/17/2012 11:09:06 AM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

“I think this explains to a nicety why birth control is and has been a tool of the leftists since it first was advocated as “family planning”. Leftists do say what they really think, just a little digging finds their own words damning them.”

Yes & for all the talk of not “taking the bait” and turning the conversation into a discussion on birth control, the FReepers around here who see nothing wrong with contraception should realize THEY have been taking the bait....for years. BC is a tool of the left. No doubt.


42 posted on 02/17/2012 11:16:14 AM PST by surroundedbyblue (Live the message of Fatima - pray & do penance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Claud; An.American.Expatriate
And NFP can be very effective if a serious reason exists to use it. Here's an abstract from the British Medical Journal:

BMJ. 1993 Sep 18;307(6906):723-6.

"Natural family planning": effective birth control supported by the Catholic Church.

Source

Department of Endocrinology, Dudley Road Hospital, Birmingham.

Abstract

During 20-22 September Manchester is to host the 1993 follow up to last year's "earth summit" in Rio de Janeiro. At that summit the threat posed by world overpopulation received considerable attention. Catholicism was perceived as opposed to birth control and therefore as a particular threat. This was based on the notion that the only method of birth control approved by the church--natural family planning--is unreliable, unacceptable, and ineffective. In the 20 years since E L Billings and colleagues first described the cervical mucus symptoms associated with ovulation natural family planning has incorporated these symptoms and advanced considerably. Ultrasonography shows that the symptoms identify ovulation precisely. According to the World Health Organisation, 93% of women everywhere can identify the symptoms, which distinguish adequately between the fertile and infertile phases of the menstrual cycle. Most pregnancies during trials of natural family planning occur after intercourse at times recognised by couples as fertile. Thus pregnancy rates have depended on the motivation of couples. Increasingly studies show that rates equivalent to those with other contraceptive methods are readily achieved in the developed and developing worlds. Indeed, a study of 19,843 poor women in India had a pregnancy rate approaching zero. Natural family planning is cheap, effective, without side effects, and may be particularly acceptable to the efficacious among people in areas of poverty.

PIP:

The Catholic Church approves the use of natural family planning (NFP) methods. Many people think only of the rhythm method when they hear NFP so they perceive NFP methods to be unreliable, unacceptable, and ineffective. They interpret the Catholic Church's approval of these methods as its opposition to birth control. The Billings or cervical mucus method is quite reliable and effective. Rising estrogen levels coincide with increased secretion of cervical mucus, which during ovulation is relatively thin and contains glycoprotein fibrils in a micelle like structure aiding sperm migration. Ultrasonography confirms that the day of most abundant secretion of fertile-type eggs white mucus is the day of ovulation. Once progesterone begins to be secreted, cervical mucus becomes thick and rubbery and acts like a plug in the cervix. Other symptoms associated with ovulation include periovulatory pain and postovulatory rise in basal body temperature. A WHO study of 869 fertile women from Australia, India, Ireland, the Philippines, and El Salvador found 93% could accurately interpret the ovulatory mucus pattern, regardless of education and culture. The probability of pregnancy among women using the cervical mucus method and having intercourse outside the fertile period was .004. The probability of conception increased the closer couples were to the fertile period when they had intercourse (.546 on -3 to -1 peak day and .667 on peak day 0), regardless of education and culture. The failure rate of NFP among mainly poor women in Calcutta, India, equal that of the combined oral contraceptive (0.2/100 women users yearly). Poverty was the motivating factor. NFP costs nothing, is effective (particularly in poverty stricken areas), has no side effects, and grants couples considerable power to control their fertility, indicating the NFP may be the preferred family planning method in developing countries. Prejudices about NFP should be dropped and worldwide dissemination of NFP information should occur.


43 posted on 02/17/2012 11:26:47 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate; Dr. Brian Kopp

No the basic point is the looser the society becomes the less responsibly it becomes, then with the lack of responsibility comes the self destruction. We are in the self-destruction phase.


44 posted on 02/17/2012 4:36:18 PM PST by jafojeffsurf (Return to the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica; MaryLou1; glock rocks; JPG; Graewoulf; VinceASA; Monkey Face; RIghtwardHo; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


45 posted on 02/17/2012 5:26:16 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: surroundedbyblue

Recognizing the evil of contraception is the next natural step for the pro-life movement. I am sure it will happen sooner or later.


46 posted on 02/17/2012 6:41:25 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica
Pinged from Terri Dailies


47 posted on 02/19/2012 10:38:37 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson