Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Contra-Contraception
new york times ^ | 5/7/06 | RUSSELL SHORTO

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: contraception; cultureoflife; dreaming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-191 next last

1 posted on 05/07/2006 11:05:37 AM PDT by mathprof
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mathprof

That was a VERY interesting article, about a mindset on contraception which I have found difficult to understand. Unfortunately, a lot of people here won't read it because they pride themselves on never reading anything from the New York Times.


2 posted on 05/07/2006 11:19:49 AM PDT by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003

I also read it in toto. Intersting, not that I agree with it.


3 posted on 05/07/2006 11:29:58 AM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mathprof
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.

A law that was never enforced. The real reason Griswold pushed against it was to create a "right to privacy."

Anyone who is for outlawing contraception gets nothing but scorn for me. Aside from the Romans and the Greeks, what major Christian denomination hasn't repealed the ban on contraception for their congregants. Even most married Catholics use artificial birth control these days.

4 posted on 05/07/2006 11:32:57 AM PDT by Clemenza (If you don't trust the government to buy your groceries, why trust it to educate your children?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

Sure it makes sense to be against both abortion and contraception--if you are are a new arrival from a distant planet and have no concept of the ways of these creatures called humans.


5 posted on 05/07/2006 11:52:46 AM PDT by Nick5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: mathprof

Bump!


7 posted on 05/07/2006 12:29:25 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003
"Unfortunately, a lot of people here won't read it because they pride themselves on never reading anything from the New York Times."


Very perceptive linda.

They also pride themselves in a thing called personal responsibility, having the intellectual ability to recognize that their individual sexual habits are a private matter, and that they are unable to save the entire world all in one day.




8 posted on 05/07/2006 12:34:17 PM PDT by G.Mason (And what is intelligence if not the craft of outthinking our adversaries?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason

I agree that one's "sexual habits are a private matter", so I'm not too thrilled to read about the people in the article who don't share that opinion, but who think their "morals" should drive what everyone else does.


9 posted on 05/07/2006 12:35:59 PM PDT by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: de gente non sancta

I take issue with your use of the word "modern". People have been trying to find ways to separate sex from conception all the way back into antiquity. It's a constant. I'm married. I have two children. I'm religious and do everything I can to live a moral life and raise my kids to do the same. There's no way I'm going to only have sex when I want to have a child, and I find it completely impossible to believe that God woul create me in such a way that I should feel what I feel for my wife, physically and emotionally, and also have to raise an unlimited amount of children, an amount of children beyond my ability to support them, beyond the amount that I want to bring into the world. Respectfully, I believe that the moral position that limits sex to procreation, even within marriage, isn't a moral stance, it's zealotry.


10 posted on 05/07/2006 12:39:10 PM PDT by Nick5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003
" ... I'm not too thrilled to read about the people in the article who don't share that opinion, but who think their "morals" should drive what everyone else does."


I agree.

Of course having no morals would lead to a very uncomfortable existence. It would encourage such things as homosexual parades, people killing people in the streets, masses of illegal aliens crossing our borders, rapes, and false rape charges ... Oh ... wait. These things are going on.

Inasmuch as most all recognized religions (even in Islam) have in them, or something similar to the Christian "Ten Commandments" (Decalogue), perhaps they should be taught and an attempt to follow them be encouraged?

11 posted on 05/07/2006 12:55:24 PM PDT by G.Mason (And what is intelligence if not the craft of outthinking our adversaries?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: G.Mason

It's rather outside the topic of this thread, unless any of them have specific decrees on contraception.


12 posted on 05/07/2006 1:04:15 PM PDT by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003
Excuse please.

I was commenting on your "morals" statement in post # 9, not the thread.




13 posted on 05/07/2006 1:10:37 PM PDT by G.Mason (And what is intelligence if not the craft of outthinking our adversaries?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

For the longest time, one of the highest goals of civilization was to raise the human race above the status of the lower animals, especially in their social behavior.

This is what led to art, architecture and the academy.

Men and women alike reveled in their ability to move around in complex geometric ways, shunning the paths to the baser pleasures in order to define a systematic plan for community living and interaction.

But there were those who sought more control and laid down rules on what art and architecture should be and what the public square should see and we ended up with the Victorian age.

Now we crowd the randy dogs out of our way, kick the wallowing pigs to the side and leap into the trough of gluttony and the bed of iniquity with all our appetites in raging force to gorge and rut and muck about with unashamed gusto.


14 posted on 05/07/2006 1:11:28 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linda_22003; Clemenza; Coleus; neverdem; firebrand
Your sexual habist and practices are not a private matter. They are quite public when they either do not produce reproductive results or do so in abudance. The death of western civilisation is toi a large extent due to the attitude that what one does in private has no public or general effect on society. Quite the opposite is of course true. The "right to privacy" is a modern bourgeois concept that doesn't even exist in the constitution. Societies have a primal imperative to assure their own perpetuation. It has been so since the dawn of mankind. Those societies that become lax in that respect, become extinct as did the Romans and other civilisations before us.



15 posted on 05/07/2006 1:17:17 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

Now we crowd the randy dogs out of our way, kick the wallowing pigs to the side and leap into the trough of gluttony and the bed of iniquity with all our appetites in raging force to gorge and rut and muck about with unashamed gusto.

_____________________________


Sounds like fun!


16 posted on 05/07/2006 1:19:38 PM PDT by Nick5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...


17 posted on 05/07/2006 1:53:06 PM PDT by Coleus (I Support Research using the Ethical, Effective and Moral use of stem cells: non-embryonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cacique
The "right to privacy" is a modern bourgeois concept that doesn't even exist in the constitution.




Do you sound this stuff out loud before you type it Komrade?
18 posted on 05/07/2006 2:32:49 PM PDT by SandfleaCSC ( “Alcohol may be man's worst enemy, but the bible says love your enemy.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SandfleaCSC
Marxism is also a Bourgeois concept, and do you stop and think before replying?



19 posted on 05/07/2006 2:37:34 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SandfleaCSC

So you think the Founding Fathers of this country were like Lenin, because they didn't put a right to privacy in the Constitution?


20 posted on 05/07/2006 2:39:43 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

I have noticed that the argument against gay marriage has sparked new thinking about what "traditional" marriage really is. Gay sex is inherently sterile, and contracepted sex is intentionally sterile. Both unnaturally subvert the God-given design for sexuality, which unites pleasure, spousal unity, and fertility in one act of love.

How could anyone argue that contracepted sex is OK, but gay sex is wrong --- unless we really ARE just bigoted against gays?

Altering sex to deliberately make it infertile is a refusal of natural sex. Writer Richard Rodriguez (I think it was on the PBS program, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) made this point when he said that contracepting couples are heterosexual gays.


21 posted on 05/07/2006 2:46:25 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Read your Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Look at the 4th and 9th amendments then tell me there is no right to privacy. The constitution doesn't give Americans rights, it limits our government, and nowhere does the constitution give government the right to spy on its citizens.
22 posted on 05/07/2006 2:48:43 PM PDT by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Thanx for the ping, but I'll pass on discussing this topic since I don't believe it wrong to practice contraception. Even my good Catholic married friends who practice the rythm method do so because they believe it okay with God to do so.


23 posted on 05/07/2006 2:49:51 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Cacique
So you think the Founding Fathers of this country were like Lenin, because they didn't put a right to privacy in the Constitution?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I think that pretty much covers the "privacy thing". By the way, the Constitution is an enumeration of the Government, people's rights aren't listed in it one by one. I'm not quite sure I understand where authoritarians like you guys get your info.
24 posted on 05/07/2006 2:53:47 PM PDT by SandfleaCSC ( “Alcohol may be man's worst enemy, but the bible says love your enemy.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369

What you said, Capt. quick draw. :)


25 posted on 05/07/2006 2:54:45 PM PDT by SandfleaCSC ( “Alcohol may be man's worst enemy, but the bible says love your enemy.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SandfleaCSC
Your way was more elegant.
26 posted on 05/07/2006 2:55:47 PM PDT by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

Ping

Another fine example of the Taliban wing of FR musings on privacy and copulation. I love these guys.


27 posted on 05/07/2006 2:57:08 PM PDT by SandfleaCSC ( “Alcohol may be man's worst enemy, but the bible says love your enemy.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cacique
"Your sexual habist and practices are not a private matter. They are quite public when they either do not produce reproductive results or do so in abudance. The death of western civilisation is toi a large extent due to the attitude that what one does in private has no public or general effect on society. Quite the opposite is of course true. The "right to privacy" is a modern bourgeois concept that doesn't even exist in the constitution. Societies have a primal imperative to assure their own perpetuation. It has been so since the dawn of mankind. Those societies that become lax in that respect, become extinct as did the Romans and other civilisations before us."

I have rarely read a paragraph with more errors-per-word.

I am a private person and my consensual behavior with another adult is, literally, none of your business. No rationalizing on your part can change that and no minor-league jesuitical discourse will alter it.

28 posted on 05/07/2006 2:57:31 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369
Your way was more elegant.

You should have seen the first draft. I had to self edit. :)

29 posted on 05/07/2006 2:58:47 PM PDT by SandfleaCSC ( “Alcohol may be man's worst enemy, but the bible says love your enemy.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods; Cacique
Not to mention with the leaps in productivity, and the unprecedented leap in technological knowledge, a civilizations population matters much less than it did 2000 years ago. Within the next 100 years, wars will be fought by machines and robots, that were built by robots and machines, that are powered by nuclear power plants that are managed automatically. Having a population at 600 million would be worse than having a population at 350 million because we'd have to struggle to feed those 600 million.
30 posted on 05/07/2006 3:10:22 PM PDT by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mathprof

Thanks for posting the article, very long but worth reading.


31 posted on 05/07/2006 3:19:30 PM PDT by kalee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandfleaCSC; Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; Americanwolfsbrother; ...
"We oppose all forms of contraception."

Big Government Social Conservative alert.





Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
32 posted on 05/07/2006 3:26:35 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/gasoline_and_government.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SandfleaCSC
Another fine example of the Taliban wing of FR musings on privacy and copulation. I love these guys.

I am always entertained as well.

"Hey you! You are conspicuously lacking in children! Your bourgeois decadence is of no help to the perpetuation of The Motherland. Get out your little red book and study harder. Next time we are coming in - and we had better see only missionary! It takes a village, and we are going to take away your liberties for the common good."

33 posted on 05/07/2006 3:38:03 PM PDT by M203M4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Puritanism: The deathly fear that someone, somewhere is getting a blow job from his wife.


34 posted on 05/07/2006 3:41:24 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza; de gente non sancta

See what I mean?


35 posted on 05/07/2006 3:43:23 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nick5
"Sounds like fun!"

Hey, move over your hogging the trough!
36 posted on 05/07/2006 3:47:16 PM PDT by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: M203M4; Cacique
"Hey you! You are conspicuously lacking in children! Your bourgeois decadence is of no help to the perpetuation of The Motherland. Get out your little red book and study harder. Next time we are coming in - and we had better see only missionary! It takes a village, and we are going to take away your liberties for the common good."

Sarcasm is the enemy of the people. You will now be confined to the reproduction camps and be forced to couple with Madeline Albright while staring at a life size photo of Cacique.


37 posted on 05/07/2006 3:48:25 PM PDT by SandfleaCSC ( “Alcohol may be man's worst enemy, but the bible says love your enemy.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
>>A law that was never enforced. The real reason Griswold pushed against it was to create a "right to privacy."<<

You know, the right of the people to left alone by the government as long as they are not hurting someone is a cornerstone of the American system of government - for lack of a better term "right to privacy" sounds good.

It is very ironic that the abortion debate has led to small government conservatives arguing there is no right to privacy.

I'd like to see us separate those issues - recognize the right to privacy but make it clear that right does not extend to killing your child.
38 posted on 05/07/2006 4:06:04 PM PDT by gondramB (He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

a conservative who's not a social conservative is no conservative at all.

Abortion is ending. Contraception will be ended eventually.


39 posted on 05/07/2006 4:08:40 PM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

Good reply. Sandflea forgot the part about marxism being bourgeios...does he even know that?


40 posted on 05/07/2006 4:09:34 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cacique
Read much WWII history? You sound like a Nazi.

In your world, does the state exist to serve the individual, or does the individual exist to serve the state?

41 posted on 05/07/2006 4:10:35 PM PDT by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SandfleaCSC
The problem with the fourth amendment is that it leaves enough loopholes to drive a truck through. and nowhere in it is the "right to privacy" stated. It allows for example the phrase "probable cause" which of course can be determined by legislation. The phrase "unreasonable searches and seizures" is also problematic. The foiunders also oinjected the "due Process" Clause which pretty much gives lots of loopholes to the state.



42 posted on 05/07/2006 4:10:41 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: balch3

a conservative who's not a social conservative is no conservative at all
_____________________________________________________

Say it loud and say it proud.


43 posted on 05/07/2006 4:10:50 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
Puritanism: The deathly fear that someone, somewhere is getting a blow job from his wife.

LOL!

Larry, you're the best.

44 posted on 05/07/2006 4:15:16 PM PDT by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: balch3
>>a conservative who's not a social conservative is no conservative at all.

Abortion is ending. Contraception will be ended eventually.<<

Abortion is wrong - ending the life of another who has the potential for a long full life and no way to defend themselves.

The government regulating general private conduct is different - the government only has (or at least is supposed to have) those powers the people have given it voluntarily. Expanding government scope and power to regulate intimate details of life isn't conservative.

Now, I would never say that means you can't be a conservative but it certainly means you hold a non-conservative position.
45 posted on 05/07/2006 4:16:35 PM PDT by gondramB (He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
All actions by all individuals whether in private or in public, whether consensual or not have public consequences. I pay taxes to educate other people's children which they had by a private consensual act. Our entire society is the result of the small private decisions of individuals which have public and societal consequences one way or another. Nothing that you do in private can in any way be divorced from consequences which in the end must be paid for by your neighbors.

You may if you wish claim to have "rights". However consequences of actions are not subject to debate. They simply are.



46 posted on 05/07/2006 4:17:20 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cacique

>>Your sexual habist and practices are not a private matter. They are quite public when they either do not produce reproductive results or do so in abudance.<<

So if a husband or wife has fertility problems you believe that is a public matter?


47 posted on 05/07/2006 4:19:23 PM PDT by gondramB (He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

I'm surprised the post is still there, actually. :-)


48 posted on 05/07/2006 4:22:35 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
I know more that you think. I am an individualist. However, the individual bears responsibility for his actions if he lives in a societal context. No society can be purely libertarian. There are always collective responsibilities of citizens in an organized society. Paying taxes, obeying laws, serving in defense of one's country etc.. The state exists to serve society first, then the indivdual, in that order. A state that would pander to every whim of individuals and allow total freedom of individuals to do whatever they wanted is not a state, or rather is a state of anarchy. If you wish to live in total freedom and bear no repsonsibility for your actions move to a deserted island away from civilisation.



49 posted on 05/07/2006 4:24:31 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: balch3
Contraception will be ended eventually.

Yep, just burn a few contraceptors at the stake. Better pass gun control laws first, though. Lots of folks will not come quietly. (No pun intended, maybe).

50 posted on 05/07/2006 4:24:33 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-191 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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