Social Reform versus Birth Control [Chesterton 1927]

G.K.Chesterton's Works on the Web ^ | 1927 | G.K. Chesterton

[discostu]

Now I know why all you said for so many posts was "tsk tsk". Because when you say more than that you can't complete a sentence without contradicting yourself. The very fact that YOU'VE decided it's morally wrong and hope we all come around "on our own" (with the help of 75 year old sophistry) shows where you're at. I hope there are lurkers listening, they'll see how obnoxious you really are.

[Lorianne]

They seem to express a sympathy with those who prefer "the right to earn outside the home" or (in other words) the right to be a wage-slave and work under the orders of a total stranger because he happens to be a richer man.

A pretty narrow description of occupation. It seems pretty clear to men that people down through the ages have always preferred (if they could at all manage it and still eat) to spend their time/effort at their own discretion; set their own occupation, vocation or avocation according to interest and free will, if they have the latitude.

For some that would become an self-directed independent occupation as avocation, as with an artists and scientist, writers, poets, musicias, architects, sculptors etc... etc. etc... ad infinitum. (Even the erstwhile idle philantropist would prefer to self direct his/her energies at will rather than be directed).

It seems to me what we are really discussing is free will; is it intrinsic to the human condition or is it not?

[Lorianne]

But with the release of sexuality from procreative ends, and making of it merely a "creative" means for "enhancing … lives and increasing self-expression and self-development," abortion has become a necessity. It is no accident that Planned Parenthood is both the largest educative force for Sangerian sexuality, and the largest abortion provider. Margaret Sanger was a racist and favored eugenics to that end but she was NOT an advocate of abortion. She was opposed to abortion. She called it a "cruel form of family limitation". She was against abortion more from the point of view of it being inhumane to women (which it is IMO and which is always overlooked in abortion debates). Planned Parenthood does not like you to know that their herione, Margaret Sanger, was no fan of abortion.

http://www.bartleby.com/1013/10.html

[Aliska]

Conception occurs with God's help. He is the Creator. The married couple cooperates with God to create a child. Each person is a gift from God. Why do you want to reject gifts from God? Do you think you know better than Him?

This is an area that causes me difficulty. God doesn't seem to have anything to do with conception to my way of thinking. I wish it were otherwise. Conception follows the laws of nature. Evil people conceive. Good people are barren. Funny I don't know too many evil (make that sinful) people who are barren. That only happens in the movies.

The only conception God seems to have had anything to do with was when Mary conceived Jesus. There are some catholic tales of people who prayed and were granted children - some probably true, some probably not - but I go by the here and now.

Barren who are granted children in these times, more often than not, came about through some form of medical "miracle", most of which are proscribed by the church.

I'm tired of trying to make sense of things that don't make sense. Birth control is a difficult doctrine, a two-edged sword. Even the church teaches that having more children than one can afford is sinful. Tell that to the Guatamalan peasant. People just can't and won't control their urges and that is that.

We all have to live with the consequences of irresponsible breeding. We also have to live with the consequences of a deteriorating gene pool in the west. Were it not for modern medicine, many people wouldn't have lived long enough to reproduce.