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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-191 next last
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!)
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 ))
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))
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!)
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.)
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 ))
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.)
To: Petronski
I'm surprised the post is still there, actually. :-)
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 ))
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).
To: gondramB
It is a public matter when they bring a life into this world. Insofar as the taxpayer will bear a considerable burden for that child, education, bureaucracy in tracking him etc.. Society will also pay for the consequences if he should become criminally inclined or or otherwise a cointributor. Either way he will impact society. That private matter between two consenting individuals has public consequences.
51
posted on
05/07/2006 4:27:29 PM PDT
by
Cacique
(quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
To: Cacique
It is a public matter when they bring a life into this world How about when they don't bring life into the world?
To: Cacique
Right but I was reponding to this part "They are quite public when they either do not produce " - I don't see why it is public business if a couple doesn't reproduce.
53
posted on
05/07/2006 4:30:45 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.)
To: Cacique
I guess you don't have a problem with China's one child rule then- after all, if the state has an interest in how many children a couple, it should be able to ban contraception or mandate sterilization at will, correct?
54
posted on
05/07/2006 4:32:59 PM PDT
by
LWalk18
To: Cacique
>>It is a public matter when they bring a life into this world. Insofar as the taxpayer will bear a considerable burden for that child, education, bureaucracy in tracking him etc..<<
BTW, you realize this is similar to the argument that liberals use to regulate every detail of our lives - that we all effect each other and the government should have great power.
55
posted on
05/07/2006 4:33:40 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.)
To: RHINO369
I know what the Constitution says, but I'm sorry if I'm not one of those "living, breathing" Consitution types, where it constantly changes.
To: RHINO369
Please tell me where in the Constitution it says people are not free to criticize society? You and others on this thread seem to think simply expressing opinion is an unconstitutional act and has to be stamped out.
To: Larry Lucido; gondramB
One of the problems of an aging population with low replacement rates is what Europe is experiencing right now and we have avoided thanks to immigration. The demographic time-bomb of course is that the US may cease to exist by the end of the century as we know it.
To be more precise, the number of workers supporting an elderly person has been declining, giving a larger burden to those that are left. With longer longevity rates the cost of medical care to keep these walking cadavers increases while the number of workers paying taxes to maintain the aging population increases. Thus the decision via the "tyranny of small decisions" (Economist Alfred E Kahn's phrase) , not to have children, has enormous consequences for society in the long run. In Europe the consequence may be that the muslim workers who will make the major part of the labor force will refuse to pay for the upkeep of aging decrepit white folks. All our decisions one way or the other have consequences. To argue otherwise is to be totally detached from reality.
58
posted on
05/07/2006 4:41:44 PM PDT
by
Cacique
(quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
To: Cacique
"You may if you wish claim to have "rights". However consequences of actions are not subject to debate. They simply are."Okay so how about my economic choices? Do you want to use community impact to control my economic decisions as well? That's called socialism, are you in favor of that? If not why not?
The difference is that the puritan-flavored objection to private choices about sex makes sense to moralists. But sexual choices are as much my own business as are economic choices. I am an adult. I am free to make choices without undue regard for the objections of those without standing in the decision. In short, the wisdom here is the wisdom your mother no doubt tried to impart when you were very young; mind you own business.
59
posted on
05/07/2006 4:45:20 PM PDT
by
muir_redwoods
(Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
To: Cacique; gondramB
So, having kids impacts the world. Not having kids impacts the world. Gotcha.
Now, if you'll excuse me I'm going to have fun with my wife with no intention of having kids this weekend. I apologize if anyone else is affected.
Well, actually, no, I don't apologize.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-191 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson