[JMJ333]

The very name of "Birth Control" is a piece of pure humbug. It is one of those blatant euphemisms used in the headlines of the Trust Press. It is like "Tariff Reform." It is like "Free Labour." It is meant to mean nothing, that it may mean anything, and especially some thing totally different from what it says. Everybody believes in birth control, and nearly everybody has exercised some control over the conditions of birth. People do not get married as somnambulists or have children in their sleep. But throughout numberless ages and nations, the normal and real birth control is called self control.

[Harrison Bergeron]

Bumping and bookmarking. Nice find.

[Mugwumps]

The landlord or the employer says in his hearty and handsome fashion: "You really cannot expect me to deprive myself of my money. But I will make a sacrifice, I will deprive myself of your children."

This immediately made me think of Teddy Kennedy.

[ELS]

Bump for later reading...

[ThomasMore]

Bookmark Bump!

[JMJ333]

What's sad is the moral liberals thinking Chesterton worthless, and coming down in ultimate agreement with Sanger. The bottom line for them is free sex at any cost. Yes...truly sad...

[Lamont Cranston]

The full claim of the poor would be to have what they considered a full-sized family. If you cut this down to suit wages you make a concession to fit the capitalist conditions.

What's wrong with making a concession to fit the capitalist conditions? And why are these Catholic threads invariably anti-capitalism?

[Polycarp]

This is excellent. I particularly like his comparison of eating disorders like bulimia, i.e., the partaking of food but spoiling its natural function, nutrition for the body, with that disorder called "birth control,' i.e., partaking of the pleasure of intercourse while spoiling its natural function, procreation.

Didn't some Freeper here use that illustration on threads in the past ;-)

[redhead]

Ka-Bump.

[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?