A 'Culture' of Inverted Sexuality

CERC ^ | Patrick Fagan

[JMJ333]

Whatever. When unable to refute evidence or answer questions --get cryptic! lol

[Mortimer Snavely]

Well, this thread got boring real quick. Adios. I've got and old WC Fields DVD to watch.

[EODGUY]

Well, this thread got boring real quick. Adios. I've got and old WC Fields DVD to watch.

Yeah Mort, I get bored very quickly also when my argument is without merit and I'm getting my A$$ kicked by someone who knows what they are talking about.

Enjoy your movie....little Chickadee.

[RLK]

I suppose you think ......

----------------------

Don't suppose anything. If I wanted to say what you suppose I would say, I would have said it. Read what I said. I don't have the patience to deal with this tonight.

[JMJ333]

Whatever. Another non answer from the pro-contraception crowd. See ya.

[Lorianne]

Contraception is immoral and has lead directly to the devaluing of life.

This kind of blanket statement has no merit unless you qualify "value". How was live valued before contraceptives were widely available. How is it valued no in areas of the world where contraceptives are not readily available or used?

From what I have seen of the world firsthand (traveling in over 50 countries, many among the poorest in the world) human life is not valued very highly relative to how we value life in the West. Women and children's lives are particularly "devalued" using Western standards of valueing life.

So your use of the word "value" has no value itself unless or until you qualify it with objective standards. Which "value of human life" exactly are/were you talking about vis a vis cultures which didn't/don't embrace contraceptives?

___Are you talking about selling daughters into prostitution to feed sons? ___Are you talking about children at 5 turned out to scavenge for food in landfills and refuse heaps? ___Are you talking about refusing women even rudimentary medical care, even in childbirth? ___Are you talking about the diseased and crippled left to drag themselves along on the ground and beg for food and being kicked like dogs? ___Are you talking about women and children at Crisis Hunger stations in Africa being beaten away from food distribution points by men clubs while they cart the food off to sell for weapons? ___Are you talking about female infanticide and female baby abandonment? ___ Are you talking about to practice of giving female children less food and medical attention than male children? ___Are you talking about 1 in 5 babies expected to make it to age 5 in some parts of the world, most dying from simple dehydration?

[Mortimer Snavely]

Do you think that the reason you find the response "cryptic" is because you are just a little too thick to understand it and so you are trying to hold the post responsible for your inability to comprehend it?

[Mortimer Snavely]

See post #67.

[Mortimer Snavely]

Mongo not like post. Make Mongo's head hurt.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

I've never seen so many errors in such a short space here on Free Republic. Lets go through it slowly:

The USA is a nation designed for sane, rational people who want to live happily in this world (emphasis yours).

You have absolutely no concept of Christianity, do you? The vast majority of Americans believe in an afterlife better than this one.

A satisfying sex life with one's husband or wife is necessary for that happiness.

Did you actually manage to find a spouse who shares this shallow view?

When the sole purpose of sex is procreation, love and intimacy, because they tend to culminate in sex for its own sake...

So love and intimacy tend culminate from sex is only for it's own sake?

...become problematic, as does the happiness which results from that love and intimacy.

This is a view of sex as nothing more than a drug.

...and as it detracts from individual happiness, is morally wrong.

A morality of self gratification? This is called hedonism.

Contraception changes that.

So contraception makes sex morally right? Can I then assume that you believe that sex for procreation is morally wrong?

A religious argument which posits that taking the pill is the first step on a slippery slope to abortion as contraception requires faith to convince

The abortifacient aspects to hormone based and IUD type contraception has nothing too do with religion, it is a scientific fact.

This post represents a remarkably sad world view. I hope for your sake that you were just trolling.

[EODGUY]

Mort, you're out of you league on this one. Why not take the time to read the article closely or be man enough to admit you're argument is lame.

Fight another day on a topic for which you have formulated a clear argument.

How was the movie?

[JMJ333]

Try reading the article LORIANNE. You'll have the answers to all your silly smart-mouthed questions. If you can't figure out the slippery slope of contraception-abortion-euthanasia-cloning-stem cells...then you just don't want to hear it. There isn't anything one can say to people like you who, would rather have your free sex regardless of the consequences. I get tired of repeating easy concepts.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

So your use of the word "value" has no value itself unless or until you qualify it with objective standards. Which "value of human life" exactly are/were you talking about vis a vis cultures which didn't/don't embrace contraceptives?

Objective standards or not, you err in attempting to use a cross-cultural argument to disprove a time-based effect assertion. The statement that "contraception is immoral and has lead directly to the devaluing of life" needs to be examined in a before and after framework to test its veracity. Your litany of tourist horror stories does nothing to undermine the original assertion since we have no idea what they were like before a contraception mentality was introduced (or what effect such an introduction would have).

[EODGUY]

Lorraine, are you implying it is better to kill babies with an abortifacient than allow them to suffer from some other malady? What a pathetic view of life, and death.

Are you saying, "Let's hurry and kill all the babies in 3rd world countries before they die of malnutrition or something else?"

In your mind this could apparently be a plausible argument, but only if EVERY child born in 3rd world countries perished.

It's still a lousy rationalization, IMO.

[Lorianne]

You failed to qualify "value". Why? I for one would like to know what you consider the benchmark or threshhold of "valueing human life". Without some point of reference your original statement has no meaning.

Even if you limit your statement just to the extremely narrow realm of the human gestational period, forgetting how human life might be valued after birth, you still fail with your blanket statment that "contraception leads directly to devalueing life" because throughout history up to an including the present day, pre-born humans are not and have never been valued universally. They are valued conditionally. Ditto for the mother who's physical well being directly correlates to the well being of the pre-born life. So until you can qualify "valueing human life" and what that entails and how it has substantially changed in our recent culture which embraces contraceptives vs cultures which don't ... I think your premis has a fatal flaw becaue you can't provie a comparitive analysis. There is no point of reference. This is not to say that contraceptives have NO link to shifts in society. And I never claimed that as you imply I did. Try reading the article LORIANNE.

I read it. I was responding specifically to your comment in my post which is why I quoted it and placed it in italics. You'll have the answers to all your silly smart-mouthed questions.

I hardly see how condescension helps you defend your point.

There isn't anything one can say to people like you who, would rather have your free sex regardless of the consequences.

You have no idea what I believe other than what I posted to you. It is a sign of weakness of your debating tactics that you launch to personal accusations about things you cannot know from our brief exchange.

[JMJ333]

You come on this thread and spew your little rage and then expect polite discourse? Stick it. My opinon is clear as crystal and defined by numerous posts. If you can't understand simple concepts and can't post your questions without sneering, then don't bother.

[Mortimer Snavely]

I Perhaps you believe that God ordained the USA into existence for some reason, probably to be found in an Old Testament Bible verse, and that the USA has value only to the extent that it serves as the Sword and Shield of the Church. I don't. Our creed, the Declaration, was written by a Deist, who authored the first Act of Religious Toleration in world history. You can be who you want to be and do what you want to do over here, as long as you understand the same applies to everyone and support the ideology and government which makes it possible. Rational self interest is the sum of the whole affair. The substitution of religious euphoria and blind acceptance of arbitrary authority based on pathological moods resulting from that euphoria is one of the things that the USA was designed to protect us against.

You imagine this statement: A satisfying sex life with one's husband or wife is necessary for that happiness shallow, somehow. I have observed that a marriage devoid of sexual satisfaction is a nuthouse able to maintain a carefully maintained mask of sanity. Religious delusions figure prominently in maintaining that fragile guise.

"Did you actually manage to find a spouse who shares this shallow view?"

Mind your own bloody business. One thing I find extremely distasteful in the religiously pre-occupied is how they feel entitled to invade the privacy of everybody and anybody, total strangers, working acquaintences, whoever. Anyone is fair game. It's irritating beyond belief.

"So love and intimacy tend culminate from sex is only for it's own sake?"

Have you ever held a woman you love passionately in your arms? Do you have any idea of the kinship between love and death? Do you know what love is? Have you ever been in love? This is the kind of question only a sexless alien or a sentient robot would ask. I am flabbergasted that any adult would be able to ask it.

"...become problematic, as does the happiness which results from that love and intimacy.

This is a view of sex as nothing more than a drug."

If you derive no happiness from the sex, bonding and intimacy with that absolutely necessary other without whom life is not worth living, then you need some serious professional help.

"...and as it detracts from individual happiness, is morally wrong.

A morality of self gratification? This is called hedonism."

Read the Declaration of Independence. It deals with rational self interest, and if you think that's hedonism, then you need to go back to the 8th grade.

All else proceeds from that. This other comment:

"Can I then assume that you believe that sex for procreation is morally wrong? "

is something your 8th grade English teacher should call you out on.

I hope that you are a junior high school student and not of voting age.

[Lorianne]

Objective standards or not, you err in attempting to use a cross-cultural argument to disprove a time-based effect assertion.

How can we evaluate the statement without a control group who don't embrace contraceptives?

The statement that "contraception is immoral and has lead directly to the devaluing of life" needs to be examined in a before and after framework to test its veracity.

Right. Which is what I attempted to do. I also you contemporaneous examples but we can go back as far in history as you want and find the same "valuation" dissonance. However, there are impracticalities in comparing modern Western standards of "valueing human life" to previous time periods. Which is why I asked the author of the comment to outline what he means by the word "value" so that we know what we are comparing with what.

Your litany of tourist horror stories does nothing to undermine the original assertion since we have no idea what they were like before a contraception mentality was introduced (or what effect such an introduction would have).

These are not "tourist horror stories". I lived and worked in many of these places. These are real human lives and real human suffering. Are you perhaps devalueing humans of other cultures than our own?

The fact is that contraception is not part of their culture and yet .... individual lives are NOT valued in the same way they are in our culture which does embrace contraceptives. What are we to do with this dissonance between the premis presented and the facts?

[Lorianne]

You come on this thread and spew your little rage and then expect polite discourse? Stick it. My opinon is clear as crystal and defined by numerous posts. If you can't understand simple concepts and can't post your questions without sneering, then don't bother. You are getting hysterical. I did not "spew" and I'm not in any kind of "rage" and I do not "sneer". And I have been polite. I asked a legitimate question and was immediately met with a condescending reply (I think you called me "smarty-mouth" or some such) which I felt was entirely unwarranted. FEY ... I was trying to have a legitimate debate with you.

Your position vis a vis "value" was not clear which is why I asked for a definition of what you consider "valueing human life" to go along with your premis.

Also, as another poster brought up, what time frame did this "devaluation" occur and what are the indications of life being devalued more now than it was then?

[JMJ333]

Post 66 qualifies as a rage. And I am not hysterical, merely tired of having to repeat myself. It is hard for me to believe that you need me to define "value."

Also, the time frame is in the article and also posted in italics in post 57. I could trace the devaluization of life beginning as a long-tern outgrowth of the protestant revolut, but that would be getting really off track. The article is dealing with the results of how contraception has lead to a loss of dignity for humanity--meaning that when "free sex" became the focus instead of family--it lead to abortion and other things that lead to a devaluing of our intrinsic worth from conception until natural death. The outgrowth of these being things I have already outlined for you.