Birth control reconsidered: Protestant film questions contraception, rediscovers Reformation beliefs

TheChristians.com ^ | Jun 11, 2013 | Celeste McGovern

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Birth control reconsidered

A Protestant film questions contraception, and rediscovers Reformation beliefs

By Celeste McGovern Jun 11, 2013

The contraception mentality: Despite half a century of contrary evidence, many still believe this.

For anyone under 60, birth control is just a fact of life. Those under 50 won’t recall that it was ever controversial. The pharmaceutical separation of sex from babies has been so thoroughly accepted by Western society that any holdouts are seen as fringers: “orthodox” Catholics, Mormons, and health hippies.

But questions about contraception are arising from unlikely sources lately: not enough to call it a trend, but significant enough to notice.

For example, the film, Birth Control: How Did We Get Here? Its Protestant director, Brian Peeples of Huntersville, North Carolina, said he got the idea after he and his wife changed their minds about birth control at a Baby Conference in 2010. It’s more of a movement than a movie, however, with a second film expected later this year, and a series of books and study guides to “communicate the Biblical position on birth control and its impact on the church, marriage and family.”

The birth control movie was “born from a desire to communicate the truth about birth control and family from the Word of God to other believers,” explains its website; this in a culture where there is little if any difference between Christians and non-believers when it comes to preventing children.

It’s the sort of ideology that’s expected from Catholic clergy and the more serious Catholic laity, but this film features mostly Protestant evangelicals: high profile Calvinist minister R.C. Sproul Jr., author George Grant, and Geoffrey Botkin of the Western Conservatory of the Arts and Sciences.

It retells the history of birth control from an evangelical perspective, recounting how in little more than a century, Protestant churches turned away from ages-old teachings on sexuality and marriage. In a flurry of European eugenics and overpopulation “science” they began to view children as inconvenient. Their teachings and birth control practices were before long indistinguishable from nonbelievers’.

Yet before that, one commenter in the film observed, “Every single church affirmed that children are a blessing and that we have no business saying no to God’s blessings.”

The film recounts the eugenic roots of the birth control movement and its rabidly anti-Christian, racist, hedonist founder Margaret Sanger, who seized on then-persuasive Malthusian overpopulation theories. Opposing her were protestants like Anthony Comstock, a 19^th century Puritan-tradition crusader who saw birth control as the devil’s particular attack on the young, and as being inextricably wed to pornography and abortion – all “born of the same mindset ,” according to the film, “the corruption of the sexual impulse… [and] contrary to scripture”

With the fall of contraceptive laws in the mid-20^th century, first pornography and then abortion were rapidly legalized; so, like him or not, Comstock is vindicated.

So is the Catholic Church, which the movie notes was the sole voice – given that the Protestants had collapsed – to weigh in,  with Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life) encyclical, affirming everything Christianity had taught about birth control for the millennia previously.

In a way the movie seems a bit of a mea culpa for mainstream Protestantism missing the boat. “Opposition to birth control was seen as a Catholic thing,” one commentator says. “Protestants were for liberty.”

One of the great tragedies of the last century, says another, is how willingly Christians co-operated with the anti-baby, pro-eugenics, agenda, compelled by “science,” a sense of duty, a desire to be modern, and for “deliverance from  responsibilities of children while having all the pleasures of adulthood,” as one commentator put it.

Some saw birth control as a means of preventing abortion. However, 50 years and 50 million American abortions later, that is a harder argument to sustain.

The difficulty in defending marriage today derives in large part from the legal arguments for the new “right to privacy” that brought birth control to the West. It began with “privacy in marriage, which soon gave way to privacy for the unmarried, this in turn gave way to privacy for homosexuals,” the film narrator remarks.  “Now that sterility is universally accepted, marriage has lost its fundamental purpose; procreation. Marriage, disconnected from its purposes, loses its meaning and the historical definition of marriage hangs in the balance.”

It is this half-century years of hindsight since the birth control pill was first marketed in North America in 1960 that is beginning to spur the sexual counter-revolutionists.

“I think we’re seeing the fruits of the whole contraceptive revolution and quite honestly the fruit is rancid,” Julie Roys, host of the radio show Up for Debate on Moody Radio, says in the film. She notes that since the pill’s arrival, the marriage rate has declined by a third, divorce has almost doubled, the proportion of children born in single parent families has more than tripled “and now we’re seeing the hookup culture.”

In that respect, the film is not alone. Mary Eberstadt’s 2012 book Adam and Eve After the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution recounts in detail the harm done by sexualization of the West, from rising divorce, increasing promiscuity, juvenile delinquency, neglect of children, abuse and objectification of girls and more.

“Society is losing its mooring and all of us are beginning to ask, ‘Where is all this heading?’” Roys says in the film. She finds that many young people particularly want a deeper understanding of male and female sexuality, and and its deeper meaning.

In any case, the first rumblings about birth control have not been missed by pro-abortion advocates. Robin Marty, a columnist at rhrealitycheck.org, a sexual and reproductive health news site, has launched an ongoing series of commentaries under the title “They’re Coming for Your Birth Control.” And one atheist blogger calls it a “freaking creepy” trend.

[Campion]

we could point out that Vatican 2 came before birth control

Huh? The Protestant approval of contraception started with the 1930 Anglican Lambeth Conference. That's not after Vatican 2 in anybody's math.

[Campion]

The fact that he would not fulfill his obligation to his dead brother and raise up children for him.

The penalty for that in the Mosaic Law is public humiliation, not death. Look it up.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

This thread is about a Protestant movie regarding the Protestant position on birth control. I notice you like to change the subject when the debate doesn't go the way you prefer.

So ... are you going to keep following Margaret Sanger’s interpretation of Scripture, or are you going to start believing and defending the Christian interpretation?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

It really is a first world thing - where birth control is in wide use and correlates little with religion - as compared to a third world thing where birth control is not in as wide use and also doesn’t correlate much with religion.

You're obviously not paying much attention to third world demographic trends. Even third world fertility rates have collapsed in the last two decades including Muslim cultures.

So your third world vs first world distinctions do not reflect reality (or common sense.) This is a global trend.

[BlueDragon]

The entire history of Christianity, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics, universally without exception interpreted that verse one way for 1930 years

Not really...since even the word "contraception" had to be invented to describe the process. Until fairly recently in the history of man, there was little to no latex, and no pills prescribed by physicians. Earlier uses of "Onan" to disapprove of male sexual discharges in any other than martial relation necessarily involving coitus directly, and that alone --- though possibly used as attempt to make argument for particular position by way of scripture, held the same flaws all along. Ask the Jews -- it's their scripture, and has depth of meaning which they are the very ones having the best description of those portions. That many have wrested those passages to some ends which may otherwise have justification, does not equal those passages having had proper or best interpretations among 'Christians' down through the centuries.

Other than after-the-fact home remedy sort of abortion treatments, to force miscarriage, there wasn't much in the way of birth control to talk about until fairly recent.

Now you come along with a new novel interpretation of that verse, one never advanced in the history of Christian thought until this evil, apostate age...

As I understand it, the interpretation is actually a Hebrew or Jewish interpretation and application of those passages truer meanings. If "never advanced in history of Christian thought", again, it was as much for reason the issue or idea of contraception, itself, wasn't all that much of an issue, and using Onan in this sense --- is among those 'close--but no cigar' sort of things, for lack of proper fit.

I'm continually taken a-back by just how casually Jewish Targum and Midrash are so thoroughly set aside by those who would seek instead to replace conceptualizations found there, with some version of "Christian" equivalent --- in taking some product of derived interpretation to stand in place of scripture itself --- which most of Judaism does acknowledge there need be bulwark against doing, showing an ongoing understanding there, or at least tacit acknowledgement of principle of sola scriptura...

Getting back more to the subject matter here more narrowly;
If man were to be laying with a woman --- well --- we all, cultures worldwide, know what the result can be -- pregnancy.

Other than some bawdy mention of "English riding coats" made by some upper-class wealthy Lothario -- is there much concerning idea of contraception, in literature from say 17th thru 19th centuries? How common was the practice (at all)? Though there is some evidence of something akin to modern condoms being put to use, it was all but a non-issue (no pun intended) in regards to married persons engaging in otherwise legitimate acts of procreation.

You do realize just how ridiculous that is, don't you? How much it begs the question, what is it you're really afraid of?

Regardless of which "side" of things one is on, again, the issue of 'contraception' (preventing pregnancy while still engaging in sexual intercourse) wasn't much of an issue, since there really wasn't much of any way to prevent pregnancy from potentially occurring (there wasn't much of anything in the way of 'contra'- conception, other than don't have sex) leaving remedy for the condition to be a thing of potions and poisons, or uterine intrusion/scraping horror. Now those things one could find mentions of being preached against, although I cannot provide specific examples.

As to opposition to use of primitive condoms -- is there any evidence that opposition to the use of those on moral grounds, were not also coupled with (no pun intended!) illicit sex outside of marriage? For that is the fundamental & real issue -- not forms of contraception or pregnancy avoidance strategies themselves.

As to such as;

That if the Church is right on this and you (most obviously) are wrong, maybe the Church is right on a lot more things than you're willing to admit. And admitting being in error is the one thing many people can't do, even if it jeopardizes their eternal salvation.

what is obvious enough, is that this issue of contraception is being now conflated into becoming something it's not, trying to use scripture passages concerning Onan as some proof, leaving it possible a thing the [Roman] Catholic church may be correct enough about (even if citing Onan be not the way to go about it) but does not make the RCC right about much of anything else --- other issues needing stand or fall upon their own merits, available evidence, facts, and truth.

But I do see this issue having been much used by Roman Catholic 'faithful' as a club to bash all others around here over the head with.

I would suggest that trying to squeeze mileage out of Onan in this regard, is falling rather flat and useless on the ground.

Among those not Christian much at all (other than possible adoption & acceptance of some cultural mindset of justice being tempered by mercy, and that doing right, even doing good to others when there is not only no gain for oneself-- but actual costs --- is still nonetheless worthwhile) the Onan argument, and the way it presented also (as has been seen on these pages in the last few days) is not gaining much of anything for the RCC, but rather (i assume) is driving them even further away.

Try approaching the issue from the other direction, as in Pro-Life (pro or being for human life, and more of it) rather than all this effort of trying to chide or shame -- adding in the "the [Roman Catholic] church is right! ANd YOU are wrong!!! sort of hatefulness, continuing justification for ever more bashing hatefulness for any who dare utter more than a few peeps of criticism of Rome.

Stop blending and blurring. If there is truth, just stand for that. Starting off out of the gate with additional agenda --- sullies the name of truth, leaving masses to just turn away from --- how yourself and other have been presenting the arguments.

There is something still in the Hebrew discussions concerning Onan -- the raising up of seed unto one's own brother -- which can hold universal value.

By which I mean, we all together, as persons and nations, due a duty and service by orderly and responsibly bringing about new life "replacement" and continuances of our own bodily life form. Procreation can very much include, yea need well include the sacredness of human life itself, if only for it's potential for greater sacredness, value, true and abiding worth. We were created in His image, albeit that now we (mankind generally) are in a fallen state, fallen away from that original state of innocence and grace, having eaten of the tree of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

Abortion --- and possibly even contraception itself (but what of [Roman] Catholic "family planning"?) isn't the simplest place to begin, when looking towards what has developed since that first eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good, and evil--- but I see some continuation there too. Or at least think I do.

Among those Christian, better perhaps than attempting to wring Onan for all he was not worth, could be to go about the argument, the Pro-Life argument as it were, to much more begin in such as Romans 12:1

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

perhaps continuing on also in that chapter and the like, in context.

This sort of approach is more from the positive side of things, rather than the bashing -- do what we say or else -- sort of imposition.

Present our bodies as living sacrifice to whom? To God, not to the brow-beatings of those who wrap themselves in some sort of mantle of fuzzy infallibility...

It stands to reason that we should all (those who are Christian, and acquainted with His Spirit) check ourselves in our own approaches to subject matter, and discussions.

James 3:17

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

Now I (my polemical self) am going to suit up in the asbestos (wishing to preserve my life for a time, this not being my place of final sacrifice if that be among my own eventual lot in life -- I dunno) for I'm sure the [rhetorical] flames will be coming my way...for I doubt that those who have picked up the torch on this issue, having massaged it into being one of those things perceived to be advantageous to [Roman] Catholic image and continuing self justifications of the "image" they wish to present to the world (they alone right in any things to do with God so there!) will be persuaded to tone it down any more than Jake the dog can be persuaded to give up the rib bones that were just tossed his way.

That dog Jake, will bite the hand that just provided the bone, if that same hand reach to take it from him...

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Regardless of which "side" of things one is on, again, the issue of 'contraception' (preventing pregnancy while still engaging in sexual intercourse) wasn't much of an issue, since there really wasn't much of any way to prevent pregnancy from potentially occurring (there wasn't much of anything in the way of 'contra'- conception, other than don't have sex) leaving remedy for the condition to be a thing of potions and poisons, or uterine intrusion/scraping horror. Now those things one could find mentions of being preached against, although I cannot provide specific examples.

What a load of nonsense and sophistry. If you do not know or care to know the long and ancient history of the practice of birth control, and the earliest Christian prohibitions against it, please refrain from pontificating on this thread. Effectiveness of the methods does not have anything to do with their universal and constant condemnation.

From http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Abortion_Euthanasia/Abortion_Euthanasia_004.htm

The Didache

As might be expected, Christians were faced from the beginning with the option of following the more difficult teaching of the Church or of conforming to their pagan environment.

While explicit and verbatim condemnation of contraception seems to have come toward the end of the second century, a passage in a first century document, the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (dated about 94 A.D.) has been interpreted as the first reaction of the Church to the prevalent non-Christian custom of destroying unwanted human life or preventing it by physical or magical means.

Aristotle is a prominent witness to the common Greek and Roman attitude toward contraception. Writing in the Historia Animalium, he explains that “Since conception is prevented if the parts be smooth, some anoint that part of the womb on which the seed falls with oil of cedar, or with ointment of lead or frankincense, commingled with olive oil” (Historia Animalium, III, 3, 583a).

As stated in the Didache, the Christian is reminded that there are two Ways, one of Life and one of Death, “and there is a great difference between the two Ways.”

For a Christian the first commandment is to love God with one’s whole heart and soul. It is in the second commandment, loving one’s neighbor, that the believer is told to respect human life, whether physically as already existing or sexually as in potentiality.

The operative words, to be quoted in context are: “Thou shalt not use magic (ou mageuseis); thou shalt not use drugs (ou pharmakeusis).” It is reasonable to conclude that the double prohibition refers to contraception and abortion because these terms (mageia) and (pharmaka) were understood to cover the use of magical rites and/or medical potions for both contraception and abortion. Moreover, the context in the Didache refers to sex activity and the right to life.

The second commandment of the teaching is this: “Thou shalt not commit murder; thou shalt not commit adultery.” Thou shalt not commit sodomy; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use magic: thou shalt not use drugs; thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide (Didache, II, 1-2).

Among other early condemnations of birth prevention are the first century Letter of Barnabas (X, 8) which denounces the practice of having intercourse while making conception impossible; and the mid-second century Apology of St. Justin the martyr who describes the marital problems of a young Christian convert. Her husband tried to satisfy his sex urge by copulating with her “against the law of nature and against what is right.” Her family prevailed on her to remain with the man for a while, but finally she could not tolerate his morals and left him. Justin praises her conduct in refusing to participate in the man’s “impious conduct” (Apologia II, 1).

[metmom]

GOD killed Onan, not the Israelites.

[metmom]

The Catholic teaching, based on comments on this and other threads, indicates that there is the mindset that sex for any other purpose but procreation, is sinful and leads to other sinful behavior, such as homosexuality.

Now, I do not get what the Catholic church's problem with sex is.

They hold virginity as a higher ideal to which to aspire than being married. They (now) demand it of their priests and nuns. They presume to tell married couples how to manage their sex life. They hypocritically push their church approved contraception under the guise of *Natural Family Planning*

Now clearly God didn't have any problem with humans having sex for enjoyment. After all, when He created Adam and Eve, he blessed their union and part of the curse was that God was going to greatly increase Eve's conception, meaning that if she wasn't that fertile then most of the sex Adam and Eve would have engaged in would have been for the fun of it. (Oh the HORROR!!!! ..../s)

Lest anyone think I'm exaggerating about the RCC stand on sex and virginity, here, from the Council of Trent.....

ON THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY.(anathemas)

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct24.html

CANON X. -If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

[metmom]

Among those not Christian much at all (other than possible adoption & acceptance of some cultural mindset of justice being tempered by mercy, and that doing right, even doing good to others when there is not only no gain for oneself-- but actual costs --- is still nonetheless worthwhile) the Onan argument, and the way it presented also (as has been seen on these pages in the last few days) is not gaining much of anything for the RCC, but rather (i assume) is driving them even further away.

They're picking the wrong mountain to die on.

Telling people that contraception is evil will not convince people that they need Jesus.

That is dealing with the symptom, not the cause.

FWIW, the Holy Spirit in inspired Scripture tells us that the love of money is the root of all evil. I guess HE is wrong as well. Good thing the Catholic church is here to straighten Him out.

[BlueDragon]

I see. The "bashing" of those not falling entirely in line with your rhetorical approach, shall continue. And this, even as a perhaps better way was pointed towards...

Woof. nice doggy [pat-pat]

[DarkSavant]

They hold virginity as a higher ideal to which to aspire than being married.

So did Jesus: Matthew 19:1-13

They presume to tell married couples how to manage their sex life.

Can you give an example of an occasion a Priest told a married couple they could not have sex?

They hypocritically push their church approved contraception under the guise of *Natural Family Planning*

The one that uses a woman's natural cycles? Nothing the couple does forcibly prevents conception, unlike other methods, therefore it's not a contraceptive..

Now clearly God didn't have any problem with humans having sex for enjoyment.

God didn't have a problem and neither does the Church. Show me where the Church states sex for pleasure is sinful. The only moral teaching is the evil of contraceptives, which has been thoroughly pointed out to be Christian teaching from the beginning. You sex should be joyful, and being open to begetting children shows your complete openness to your spouse

You can enjoy your food, but it doesn't justify being a glutton.

After all, when He created Adam and Eve, he blessed their union and part of the curse was that God was going to greatly increase Eve's conception,

Huh? God stated her childbirth would be more painful. Show me the verse where he states he will increase the rate of Eve's conception.

[RFEngineer]

“So your third world vs first world distinctions do not reflect reality (or common sense.) This is a global trend. “

Actually it does reflect reality. First world fertility generally below replacement rate, third world fertility above replacement rate. Sure fertility is lower - does that have anything to do with what religion predominates in a certain country? (I’ll give you a hint: It doesn’t)

No correlation to religion. Definite correlation to “first world vs. third world”.

Remember, your point was that a “Protestant” film questions contraception. So how do you think fertility rates manage to decline anywhere? Why do you think a “Protestant” film will make a difference, just because it’s “Protestant”?

[NKP_Vet]

“Now, I do not get what the Catholic church’s problem with sex is”

Nothing if you’re married.

Sex does not lead to homosexuals, sinning does.

Homosexual acts is perverted, demented sexual perversion. Practice it and die a slow death, especially sodomite men.
It is also against the Word Of God and I don’t care what religion you might belong to. Tey all condemn the sleazy act of homosexuality.

[NKP_Vet]

“I’m not afraid at all to admit that the Catholic church has been right about some things”.

As long as I have read your postings you have NEVER said a positive thing about Catholicism. Never. If anyone posts anything about the Catholic Church that is undisputed fact and anything that is favorable to the church that no Christian can disagree with, you will not respond to the post at all. Your response to any Catholic story is always in the negative.

[RFEngineer]

“Now here you are, on the RF trying to make a little sense.”

I dunno, I guess I’m stubborn. I’m not trying to make a theological argument here.

[metmom]

Can you give an example of an occasion a Priest told a married couple they could not have sex?

Did I say that a priest told married couples not to have sex? Why did you change the topic?

The one that uses a woman's natural cycles? Nothing the couple does forcibly prevents conception, unlike other methods, therefore it's not a contraceptive..

The hypocrisy abounds. NFP is about preventing pregnancy, the very thing that is condemned by many Catholics on this board. Sex without the risk of pregnancy is sex without the risk of pregnancy. If that is inherently evil, then so is NFP because one of it's main purposes is sex without the risk of pregnancy.

Huh? God stated her childbirth would be more painful. Show me the verse where he states he will increase the rate of Eve's conception.

Here. In the Hebrew....

http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/3-16.htm

Young's Literal Translation

Unto the woman He said, 'Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband is thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.'

[metmom]

Wow. You’ve read EVERY SINGLE ONE of my posts that I ever posted?

I’m impressed.

[daniel1212]

More on,

Anthony Comstock was born in New Canaan, Connecticut. As a young man, he enlisted and fought for the Union in the American Civil War from 1863 to 1865 in Company H, 17th Connecticut Infantry. He served without incident, but objected to the profanity used by his fellow soldiers.[1] Afterwards he became an active worker in the Young Men’s Christian Association in New York City.

In 1873, Comstock created the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, an institution dedicated to supervising the morality of the public. Later that year, Comstock successfully influenced the United States Congress to pass the Comstock Law, which made illegal the delivery or transportation of “obscene, lewd, or lascivious” material as well as any methods of, or information pertaining to, birth control and venereal disease. George Bernard Shaw used the term “comstockery”, meaning “censorship because of perceived obscenity or immorality”, after Comstock alerted the New York City police to the content of Shaw’s play Mrs. Warren’s Profession. Shaw remarked that “Comstockery is the world’s standing joke at the expense of the United States. Europe likes to hear of such things. It confirms the deep-seated conviction of the Old World that America is a provincial place, a second-rate country-town civilization after all.” Comstock thought of Shaw as an “Irish smut dealer.”[2] The term ‘comstockery’ was actually first coined in an editorial in The New York Times in 1895.[3]

Comstock lived in Summit, New Jersey from 1880 to 1915.[4] He built a house there in 1892 at 35 Beekman Road, where he died in 1915.[5]

Comstock’s ideas of what might be “obscene, lewd, or lascivious” were quite broad. During his time of greatest power, even some anatomy textbooks were prohibited from being sent to medical students by the United States Postal Service.[1]
1887 Letter from Anthony Comstock to Josiah Leeds

Comstock aroused intense loathing from early civil liberties groups and intense support from church-based groups worried about public morals. He was a savvy political insider in New York City and was made a special agent of the United States Postal Service, with police powers up to and including the right to carry a weapon. With this power he zealously prosecuted those he suspected of either public distribution of pornography or commercial fraud. He was also involved in shutting down the Louisiana Lottery, which was the only legal lottery in the United States at the time and was notorious for corruption.

Comstock is also known for his opposition to Victoria Woodhull and Tennessee Claflin, and those associated with them. The men’s journal The Days’ Doings had popularized images of the sisters for three years and was instructed by its editor (while Comstock was present) to stop producing lewd images. Comstock also took legal action against the paper for advertising contraceptives. When the sisters published an expose of an adulterous affair between Reverend Henry Ward Beecher and Elizabeth Tilton, he had the sisters arrested under laws forbidding the use of the postal service to distribute ‘obscene material’–specifically citing a mangled Biblical quote Comstock found obscene–though they were later acquitted of the charges[citation needed].

Less fortunate was Ida Craddock, who committed suicide on the eve of reporting to Federal prison for distributing via the U.S. Mail various sexually explicit marriage manuals she had authored. Her final work was a lengthy public suicide note specifically condemning Comstock.

Comstock claimed he drove fifteen persons to suicide in his “fight for the young”.[6] He was head vice-hunter of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. The self-labeled “weeder in God’s garden”, he arrested D. M. Bennett for publishing his “An Open Letter to Jesus Christ” and later entrapped the editor for mailing a free-love pamphlet.[clarification needed] Bennett was prosecuted, subjected to a widely publicized trial, and imprisoned in the Albany Penitentiary.

Comstock had numerous enemies, and in later years his health was affected by a severe blow to the head from an anonymous attacker. He lectured to college audiences and wrote newspaper articles to sustain his causes. Before his death, Comstock attracted the interest of a young law student, J. Edgar Hoover, interested in his causes and methods.

During his career, Comstock clashed with Emma Goldman and Margaret Sanger. In her autobiography, Goldman referred to Comstock as the leader of America’s “moral eunuchs”. Through his various campaigns, he destroyed 15 tons of books, 284,000 pounds of plates for printing ‘objectionable’ books, and nearly 4,000,000 pictures.[1] Comstock boasted that he was responsible for 4,000 arrests.[7] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Comstock

[NKP_Vet]

I am only concerned with the posts that I have replied to and you have answered, whether started by me or others. You have never said one thing positive about Catholicism. If it’s a great human interest story that just happens to be written by a Catholic, whether on abortion or anything else, hundreds of posters will weigh in on it except you. Nothing from you about anything positive to do with the Catholic Church. But you seem to be the first to criticise each and everything thing that is posted negative about the Church. The protestant guilt of leaving the Church runs deep. There is no other explanation.

[daniel1212]

Martin Luther called contraception “marital sodomy.” Calvin called it an “unforgivable sin.” How Protestantism got to where it is today on this subject is worthy of extensive study and reflection.

It certainly refutes the notion many RCs have that they follow Luther like a pope, but the reason i believe is partly due to ignorance (even now) of its possible abortive effects, and embrace of technology coupled with a lack of depth in analysis. Many perhaps see it as another way of subduing nature to suit man's needs,or desires, without understanding the deeper principles involved.

And due to the Pill bomb, now we have 4 times as many pets as kids in the US. The following from http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22761931/no-kids-no-worries-doesnt-work-after-few# is quite informative:

► Colorado has more than 1.1 million dogs, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association, and not quite 350,000 children under 5 years old, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In the U.S., there are 145 million dogs and cats, compared with 20.2 million kids under 5.

Pew Research Social & Demographic Trends reported in December that the overall birth rate in the U.S. fell to 63.2 births per 1,000 in 2011, the lowest level since records began in 1920. By contrast, in 1957 — the height of the baby boom — the overall birth rate was 122...

Higher divorce rates, cohabitation outside marriage, effective birth control, legalization of abortion, women in the workplace, delayed marriage and motherhood and the exploding costs of raising children have pushed Americans into having fewer kids, Last said.

From stringent safety requirements for car seats to lost wages for stay-at-home parents and a 1,000 percent increase in college tuition in real dollars since 1960, Last said, having kids is a terrible financial investment.

It once made sense to have kids who would take care of you in your old age, Last wrote, but now there are government entitlements for that.

Yet, as the largest generation — 78 million baby boomers — progresses into retirement, paying higher medical costs and collecting Social Security payments, Pew analysts noted, the newest, smallest generation of workers will have to support it.

The Social Security Administration reports that in 1940, 159 workers supported each U.S. retiree. By 2010, just under three workers supported each retiree. For a country or state to maintain a steady population, it needs a total fertility rate of 2.1 .

Another way to maintain a youthful population is a continual influx of immigrants. America and Colorado so far have experienced mostly net migration gains, enough to keep populations growing... "In America, we've been insulated from the worst effects by immigrants," Last said. "It helps. But it doesn't seem to have the same rejuvenating effect as everybody making babies."

"We actually don't have real differences along religious lines," he said. It's a question now of "religiosity," or how much one attends church. Those who regularly attend worship services have more children..

Meanwhile, liberals are actually worried about evangelicals having more kids than them:

► http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100029971/atheism-is-doomed-the-contraceptive-pill-is-secularisms-cyanide-tablet/: The 1960s counterculture slogan “make love, not war” could have been invented for the Hutterites, a conservative, pacifist Anabaptist community in the US and Canada. Numbering 400 at the end of the 19th century, when they moved to Dakota on the point of extinction, there are almost 50,000 Hutterites today, despite conversion being extremely rare (they speak an archaic form of High German and live in the middle of nowhere, which makes it unlikely they’ll turn up at your doorstep with a funny grin).

They are not alone. The Mormons continue to grow by 40 per cent every decade, largely thanks to a high birth rate, so much so that by 2080 there will be anywhere between 63 and 267 million Mormons, depending on whether that figure falls to 30 per cent or 50 per cent.

And Evangelical Christians now account for two thirds of white American Protestants, while the ultra-Orthodox account for 17 per cent of British Jewry, but 75 per cent of children.

Also of interest:

► http://www.rmdfw.com/justthefactsblog/2012/12/10/white-evangelical-birth-rate-skyrockets: Demand for housing in suburbia will be strong in the future. One of the big reasons: the exploding birth rate among White Evangelicals, who typically live in the suburbs and small towns across America. Today, there are over 75 million White Evangelicals in the United States, and that number grows each year. One of the big reasons is that the White Evangelical birth rate is now over 3 children per female, up from 2.4 children per female in the Twentieth Century. Mainline Protestant birth rate is 1.4 children per female, and that number has been consistent for decades. White Evangelicals were 28 percent of the voters in 2012, up from 15 percent just 20 years ago. How this will affect the suburban public schools remain uncertain. White Evangelicals put much emphasis on home schooling and private religious schools. Almost 30 percent of their children today do not attend public schools, and that percentage is increasing.

And this from WP:

► The Christian fertility has varied throughout history, but it has declined along with most other fertility figures. It is also important to point out that the Christian fertility varies from country to country. Over the last 20 years (1989–2009), the average world fertility rate decreased from 3.50 to 2.58, a fall of 0.92 children per women or 26%. The weighted average fertility rate for Christian nations decreased in the same period from 3.26 to 2.58, a fall of 0.68 children per women or 21%. The weighted average fertility rate for Muslim nations decreased in the same period from 5.17 to 3.23, a fall of 1.94 children per women or 38%. The gap in fertility between the Christian- and Muslim-dominated nations fell from 67% in 1990 to 17% in 2010. If the trend continues, the Muslim and Christian fertility rates will converge in around 2015.

10 countries with highest percentage of Christians

Christian and Muslim fertility rate^[1][2]

Birth surplus by religion^[3]

UN Ranking	Country	Fertility rate (2005–2010) (births/woman)[4]	Percent Christian
1	Vatican City		100.0%
2	Pitcairn Islands		100.0%
3	Ecuador	2.58	99.0%
4	East Timor	6.53	99.0%
5	Armenia	1.39	98.7%
6	Equatorial Guinea	5.36	98.6%
7	Moldova	1.40	98.3%
8	American Samoa	3.22	98.3%
9	Venezuela	2.55	98.0%
10	Greece	1.40	98.0%

Year	Avg. world fertility	Avg. Christian fertility	Avg. Muslim fertility
1989	3.50	3.26	5.17
1990	3.40	3.14	5.25
1991	3.30	3.08	5.05
1992	3.30	2.95	4.92
1993	3.20	2.87	4.78
1994	3.10	2.84	4.75
1995	3.10	2.84	4.60
1996	2.90	2.66	4.28
1997	2.90	2.62	4.18
1998	2.90	2.63	4.05
1999	2.80	2.61	3.81
2000	2.80	2.62	3.69
2001	2.73	2.55	3.62
2002	2.70	2.54	3.56
2003	2.65	2.51	3.56
2004	2.62	2.49	3.52
2005	2.60	2.46	3.47
2006	2.59	2.50	3.44
2007	2.59	2.52	3.37
2008	2.61	2.60	3.30
2009	2.58	2.58	3.23
2010	2.56	2.56	3.00

Religion	Birth surplus[1]
Christianity	22,708,799
Islam	21,723,118
Hinduism	13,194,111
Buddhism	3,530,918
Sikhism	363,677
Judaism	194,962
Bahá'í	117,158
Jainism	74,539
Confucianism	55,739
Zoroastrianism	45,391
Taoism	25,397
Shinto	8,534
Global population	78,860,791
Total	78,860,791

And: http://populationalert.org/CatholicsByCountry.htm

#

Catholics	Population	Catholic	Fertility Rate	Country	Total Priests
1	143,783,000	180,644,000	79.59%	2.5	Brazil	16,169
2	124,291,000	141,573,000	87.79%	3.1	México	13,389
3	66,817,000	81,173,000	82.31%	3.7	Philippines	7,025
4	61,964,000	275,441,000	22.50%	2.0	USA	46,615
5	57,135,000	58,777,000	97.21%	1.2	Italy	51,951
6	46,289,000	58,365,000	79.31%		France	24,598
7	39,085,000	41,251,000	94.75%	1.2	Spain	26,777

And from the National Institutes of Health http://populationalert.org/Contraceptive_use.htm And from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723861/

There is a long tradition of research on religion and fertility in the United States, largely focusing on Catholic-Protestant differences. These studies documented persistent differences between Catholics and Protestants in the early part of the twentieth century and continuing through the Baby Boom (e.g. Freedman, Whelpton, and Campbell 1959; Ryder and Westoff 1971; Whelpton, Campbell, and Patterson 1966). Higher fertility among Catholics was attributed to Catholic doctrine prohibiting birth control, but also to education and income differences between Catholics and Protestants, to the distinctive family culture of immigrant Catholic populations, and to the prominent place of churches and Catholic schools in Catholic communities (Sherkat and Ellison 1999; Westoff and Bumpass 1973; Westoff and Jones 1979).

Starting in the 1970s, demographers documented convergence in Catholic and Protestant birth rates, the “end” of Catholic fertility (Mosher and Hendershot 1984; Westoff and Jones 1979). With this convergence, the focus of the demographic literature on religion shifted. Other religious groups with pro-natalist doctrine, such as Mormons and conservative Protestants, gained attention for higher than average levels of fertility (Heaton 1986; Hout, Greeley, and Wilde 2001; Marcum 1981; Mosher, Williams, and Johnson 1992). However, recent research also moves beyond the study of particular denominations to consider the impact of the strength of religious sentiment, measured using frequency of attendance or frequency of communion (e.g. Mosher and Hendershot 1984; Mosher, Williams, and Johnson 1992; Marcum 1981, 1988). These studies consistently find higher fertility among more religiously active women across denominations, although the magnitude of the effect varies with the measures used for fertility and for religiosity. It is not clear to what extent the theoretical framework described above fits this new orientation.