Contra-Contraception

new york times ^ | 5/7/06 | RUSSELL SHORTO

[Cacique]

When I was in graduate school in the 70's China's population was estimated at 800 million. It is far above 1.5 billion today. The Chinese government uses that repoductive law more as a political tool. In reality it is rarely enforced nationwide. In this case it is a state policy having consequences. The fact most Chinese ignore it anyway is a testament to the consequences of small decisions that have nearly doubled the population in 30 years.

[gondramB]

>>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.<<

The constitution does explicitly guarantee the continuation of some rights that the framers thought might be threatened. Some of those rights weren't protected or observed under the British system so you could argue they were "given" by the constitution. But I get your point.

[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."

I have said nothing even remotely close to that. But I will strongly disagree with anyone who thinks there is no right to privacy in the constitution. And it wasn't put there by a living breathing process it's always been there.

[Deo et Patria]

Bravo. As the oldest of 12 children from an Italian Catholic family, I can tell you that no child is an "accident". They are all blessings from God, the question is whether the parents are open to accepting these wonderful gifts. Unfortunately, for many parents, the answer to such question is a resounding NO.

[RHINO369]

The origin constitution had no rights, and many of the framers thought it was dangerous to include a list of rights because it might be assumed that anything not on that list wasn't a right. The Bill of Rights was only passed to insure the new Constitution would pass 3/4 of the states. In the end the framers were right, many assume if it is not clearly enumerated its not a right, when thats simply not the case. Unless the constitution gives the government a right to regulated something, it is unconstitutional to regulate that act.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Natural Famlily Planning (you date yourself by calling it "rhythm," a term which hasn't been used since the 60's) isn't contraception. It's abstinence.

[Petronski]

The state exists to serve society first, then the indivdual, in that order.

Jawohl, Herr Doktor!

[Larry Lucido]

It's abstinence.

Not for three weeks, it ain't.

[Cacique]

I suggest you go and read the Constitution, The part about "to provide for the common defense" and the part to "insure domestic tranquility", "promote the general welfare" and so on and so forth. No it wasn't written with you in mind. But society in general.

[Larry Lucido]

So just to clarify, Cacique, should there or shouldn't there be laws against contraception, or against non-procreational sex acts between married couples? That's all I really care about. If you just disapprove, I couldn't care less.

[Larry Lucido]

Oh, and when practing NFP to decide when to "abstain," watch that whole digital manipulation of the cervix. Some NFP practitioners warn that this amounts to masturbation.

I am not, repeat, NOT, making that up.

[ndt]

Cacique: " The state exists to serve society first, then the indivdual, in that order."

Petronski: "Jawohl, Herr Doktor!

Come on now, thats not a fair comparison. There is no racial overtones, it's much closer to Mussolinis Fascism then Hitlers Nazism.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "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..."

I'm with you, Nick5. It's extreme and wrongheaded to say that married people can only have sex when you want a child; and it would be irresponsible to have multiple children that you knew you couldn't support.

But I praise God for making fertility and infertility part of the female design. (I don't think I'm exaggerating in saying that the design of human sexuality is brilliant.) It makes it possible for husbands and wives to choose the fertile or the infertile time, and to achieve or avoid pregnancy: as only you and your wife have the right and the wisdom to decide.

[Petronski]

There is no racial overtones, it's much closer to Mussolinis Fascism then Hitlers Nazism.

I stand by the comparison. He sounds like he's speaking for the Bunde Deutscher Madel.

[Nick5]

As one doctor I know said, "You know what we call women who practice natural cycle birth control? Mothers." It's so hard to predict and get it right--witness my first child. But how happy am I that we goofed!!!!!!!

[NutCrackerBoy]

Unless the constitution gives the government a right to regulated something, it is unconstitutional to regulate that act.

We are speaking only of the federal government. Article I Section 8 ennumerates what the federal government is permitted to do - the BOR sharpens the point regarding liberties which the federal government must not abridge. And even though the states should also supply those protections, we have the Doctrine of Incorporation allowing the federal courts to protect them down through the states.

But it is not correct to say the Constitution forbids state governments from regulating the hell out of a wide range of things. Like for example, the SCOTUS' incorrect Lawrence v. state of Texas decision that absurdly created the federally protected right to sodomy. (BTW I would be very opposed to laws banning sodomy in my state.)

[Cacique]

Policies are determined by societies at different times given different conditions. Personally, I care not a whit as I am not long for this world anyway. I would like to see this society survive, but every day I come to the conclusion that the west has decided on collective suicide anyway. If the societal mechanisms. The problem of course is that we are undecided on a future course as we have no consensus even on this thread among conservatives. In a demographic sense the low reproductive rate of native americans, the high immigration rates from non-western countries with uncommon values. The high cost of a declining workforce willing to support an aging population. All these things are cause for concern. When in a crisis societies are sometimes prone to forfeiting some of their "rights" for the collective interest. But where are the limits? We pulled back after the civil war and WWI and WWII. The laws we have on the books right now are mild when compared to those times, but the technology in the hands of the state to limit our freedoms is even greater than it was then. The question in the end is what do we consider more important, our own selfish hedonistic interests? or the long term interests of the survival of western civilization? I am afraid that like the ancient Patricians of old Rome, we are more and more siding with hedonism. One way or the other society will make those choices via the process of the "tyranny of small decisions".

[RHINO369]

No government can ever take away a persons natural rights. Even if your state constitution didn't grant a freedom to speech its still illegal to take away god given rights. If it does its cause to rebel and destroy that government.

[Larry Lucido]

Okay, I didn't find a direct answer in your speech. Yes, different times call for different approaches, yada yada yada.

I'll ask again, is it ever okay to make someone a felon for having non-procreative sex with his wife (i.e, using a rubber, having oral sex, etc, etc)? I say no, and I don't need a paragraph to say so.

[timm22]

Even my good Catholic married friends who practice the rythm method do so because they believe it okay with God to do so.

A question, not just for you, but for everyone: Is there really any moral difference between NFP and "artificial" birth control?

NFP can be described as an attempt to greatly reduce the possibility of pregnancy, without entirely removing the procreative aspect of sex. After all, NFP isn't absolutely 100% effective.

Social conservatives point out that most "artificial" methods of birth control are not 100% effective at preventing contraception.

If that's the case, couldn't one claim that using an imperfect, "artificial" form of birth control is morally equivalent to using an imperfect, natural method? In both cases, people are trying to reduce the chances of pregnancy. In both, there is still some chance of pregnancy, so they can't be said to be completely severing the possibility of creating life. It's just that the "artifical" method is better at meeting the couple's needs.

Agree, or disagree?

(I'll set aside for a moment the distinction between "artificial" and "natural," as both use science and technology not available to primitive man.)