NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Most of you who have read things I've posted in the past know of my distain for most so-called "protestors," perhaps due at least in part to negative experiences with "anti-war protestors" during the Vietnam war. However, if this type of thing ever gets rolling, I will most assuredly be right there with the other protestors, waving banners and shouting.

Are these people for REAL??? They HAVE to be insane! They just HAVE to be! :mad:


Contra-Contraception (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By RUSSELL SHORTO
Published: May 7, 2006
The English writer Daniel Defoe is best remembered today for creating the ultimate escapist fantasy, "Robinson Crusoe," but in 1727 he sent the British public into a scandalous fit with the publication of a nonfiction work called "Conjugal Lewdness: or, Matrimonial Whoredom." After apparently being asked to tone down the title for a subsequent edition, Defoe came up with a new one — "A Treatise Concerning the Use and Abuse of the Marriage Bed" — that only put a finer point on things. The book wasn't a tease, however. It was a moralizing lecture. After the wanton years that followed the restoration of the monarchy, a time when both theaters and brothels multiplied, social conservatism rooted itself in the English bosom. Self-appointed Christian morality police roamed the land, bent on restricting not only homosexuality and prostitution but also what went on between husbands and wives. [ They visit MY home, they get shot! ]

It was this latter subject that Defoe chose to address. The sex act and sexual desire should not be separated from reproduction, he and others warned, else "a man may, in effect, make a whore of his own wife." To highlight one type of then-current wickedness, Defoe gives a scene in which a young woman who is about to marry asks a friend for some "recipes." "Why, you little Devil, you would not take Physick to kill the child?" the friend asks as she catches her drift. "No," the young woman answers, "but there may be Things to prevent Conception; an't there?" The friend is scandalized and argues that the two amount to the same thing, but the bride to be dismisses her: "I cannot understand your Niceties; I would not be with Child, that's all; there's no harm in that, I hope." One prime objective of England's Christian warriors in the 1720's was to stamp out what Defoe called "the diabolical practice of attempting to prevent childbearing by physical preparations."

The wheels of history have a tendency to roll back over the same ground. For the past 33 years — since, as they see it, the wanton era of the 1960's culminated in the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 — American social conservatives have been on an unyielding campaign against abortion. But recently, as the conservative tide has continued to swell, this campaign has taken on a broader scope. Its true beginning point may not be Roe but Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that had the effect of legalizing contraception. "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."

The American Life League is a lay Catholic organization, and for years — especially since Pope Paul VI's "Humanae Vitae" encyclical of 1968 forbade "any action which either before, at the moment of or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation" — being anti-contraception was largely a Catholic thing. Protestants and other non-Catholics tended to look on curiously as they took part in the general societywide acceptance of various forms of birth control. But no longer. Organizations like the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, which inject a mixture of religion and medicine into the social sphere, operate from a broadly Christian perspective that includes opposition to some forms of birth control. Edward R. Martin Jr., a lawyer for the public-interest law firm Americans United for Life, whose work includes seeking to restrict abortion at the state level and representing pharmacists who have refused to prescribe emergency contraception, told me: "We see contraception and abortion as part of a mind-set that's worrisome in terms of respecting life. If you're trying to build a culture of life, then you have to start from the very beginning of life, from conception, and you have to include how we think and act with regard to sexuality and contraception." Dr. Joseph B. Stanford, who was appointed by President Bush in 2002 to the F.D.A.'s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee despite (or perhaps because of) his opposition to contraception, sounded not a little like Daniel Defoe in a 1999 essay he wrote: "Sexual union in marriage ought to be a complete giving of each spouse to the other, and when fertility (or potential fertility) is deliberately excluded from that giving I am convinced that something valuable is lost. A husband will sometimes begin to see his wife as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification." :rolleyes:

As with other efforts — against gay marriage, stem cell research, cloning, assisted suicide — the anti-birth-control campaign isn't centralized; it seems rather to be part of the evolution of the conservative movement. The subject is talked about in evangelical churches and is on the agenda at the major Bible-based conservative organizations like Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition. It also has its point people in Congress — including Representative Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, Representative Joe Pitts and Representative Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania and Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — all Republicans who have led opposition to various forms of contraception.

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is considered one of the leading intellectual figures of evangelical Christianity in the U.S. In a December 2005 column in The Christian Post titled "Can Christians Use Birth Control?" he wrote: "The effective separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most important defining marks of our age — and one of the most ominous. This awareness is spreading among American evangelicals, and it threatens to set loose a firestorm.. . .A growing number of evangelicals are rethinking the issue of birth control — and facing the hard questions posed by reproductive technologies."

[ This article is NINE pages long! Read the rest of the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin). ]

I'd be right there with ya, Eut. These people can go fuck themselves in the head. What people do in their own home is their own business. It is not up to them to decide if a married couple have sex and/or use birth control or not. It is also not up to them if a gay couple has sex or not. It is not up to them if I masturbate or not, though these assholes will probably go after that next. We should not attempt to control others lives. It is wrong to do so.

Dear Lord!! This article reads worse that Heart of Darkness. Did you read all nine pages of it?

What these people are trying to do is reverse natural human biology-which involves having sex for fun, otherwise we wouldn't do it. Besides, we already have too many people, if the population keeps on growing, we will surely have an environmental catastrophe of biblical proportions

Dude--where have you been? We've been talking about this for months, all the while enduring dismissive replies from you and your clones.

What these people are trying to do is reverse natural human biology-which involves having sex for fun, otherwise we wouldn't do it. Besides, we already have too many people, if the population keeps on growing, we will surely have an environmental catastrophe of biblical proportions
Maybe that's what they're trying to do! Only the brimstone will be made of body fat instead of...whatever...brimstone is.

Maybe that's what they're trying to do! Only the brimstone will be made of body fat instead of...whatever...brimstone is.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say there, my friend.

Good god. Nine pages of THAT? I lost all desire to read any of it a few sentances in.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say there, my friend.
Overabundance of people leads to overabundance of body fat. Especially from overweight people. Mass raining of fat ensues.

COMMENTARY: Most of you who have read things I've posted in the past know of my distain for most so-called "protestors," perhaps due at least in part to negative experiences with "anti-war protestors" during the Vietnam war. However, if this type of thing ever gets rolling, I will most assuredly be right there with the other protestors, waving banners and shouting.

Are these people for REAL??? They HAVE to be insane! They just HAVE to be! :mad:

[ This article is NINE pages long! Read the rest of the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin). ]

I'm not at all surprised. It's been on the cards for years. The right to contraception liberated women in a much truer fashion than 'political suffrage'. The right to abortion liberated women further, in that it actually gave a woman a choice to 'flee the scene of the crime', so to speak - finally actually giving equality.

I have never believed that the anti-abortion faction (or 'Pro-Life' as they'd prefer to be called) was about foetuses. I have never believed they were about the religious sanctity of life, or the right to exist - as they claim.

I've always suspected that what they are REALLY about, is putting women 'back where they belong' (as they see it)... as housewives, barefoot and pregnant - vessels of furtherment of the species, rather than members OF that species.

It fits with the 'patriarchal heirarchy' that so many of the anti-abortionists claim (and demand)... the hardline adherence to the 'women as chattals' aspects of scripture, for example - while they ignore any of the prohibitions and clauses that they are uncomfortable with. (Just in the last year, we've seen the Southern Baptist conventions 're-dedicating' themselves to exactly that kind of interpretation of scripture).

This article just reinforces what we already knew. It's not about the 'children'. It's about taking away choices... taking away RIGHTS to choose.

Good god. Nine pages of THAT? I lost all desire to read any of it a few sentances in.
Ha! I lost all desire in life after reading a few sentences of it.

And welcome to the forums.

Good god. Nine pages of THAT? I lost all desire to read any of it a few sentances in.
Well, if you live in the US, and you have sex, you might want to read the rest nonetheless, because if these fuckers have their way--and they have an inordinate amount of power right now--you might be changing your sexual habits.

I'm not at all surprised. It's been on the cards for years. The right to contraception liberated women in a much truer fashion than 'political suffrage'. The right to abortion liberated women further, in that it actually gave a woman a choice to 'flee the scene of the crime', so to speak - finally actually giving equality.

I have never believed that the anti-abortion faction (or 'Pro-Life' as they'd prefer to be called) was about foetuses. I have never believed they were about the religious sanctity of life, or the right to exist - as they claim.

I've always suspected that what they are REALLY about, is putting women 'back where they belong' (as they see it)... as housewives, barefoot and pregnant - vessels of furtherment of the species, rather than members OF that species.

It fits with the 'patriarchal heirarchy' that so many of the anti-abortionists claim (and demand)... the hardline adherence to the 'women as chattals' aspects of scripture, for example - while they ignore any of the prohibitions and clauses that they are uncomfortable with. (Just in the last year, we've seen the Southern Baptist conventions 're-dedicating' themselves to exactly that kind of interpretation of scripture).

This article just reinforces what we already knew. It's not about the 'children'. It's about taking away choices... taking away RIGHTS to choose.
This is something that I suspected all along.

Well, if you live in the US, and you have sex, you might want to read the rest nonetheless, because if these fuckers have their way--and they have an inordinate amount of power right now--you might be changing your sexual habits.
I find it hard to believe that they know what ahem, fucking is all about. :cool:

Overabundance of people leads to overabundance of body fat. Especially from overweight people. Mass raining of fat ensues.
Oh, well that would explain the obesity epidemic in our country...

I find it hard to believe that they know what ahem, fucking is all about. :cool:
It all boils down to "we never get any so no one else should either!" type of whining, doesn't it?

I find it hard to believe that they know what ahem, fucking is all about. :cool:
Oh, they do. They've just decided that it should happen in a very specific way.

Dear Lord!! This article reads worse that Heart of Darkness. Did you read all nine pages of it?
I tried, but had to go throw up so many times I became too weak to read the rest of it. :rolleyes:

Oh, they do. They've just decided that it should happen in a very specific way.
What gives them the right to decide that, though? Honestly? I have NEVER understood why people would want to restrict personal freedoms in this manner. IT IS NOT FOR YOU TO DECIDE WHO I FUCK, WHEN I FUCK, OR WHY I FUCK.

But then, I was raised to be open-minded, accepting, and understanding of the fact that I have no right to force my beliefs on others, and nor does anyone else. A shame so many are not raised in kind.

Dude--where have you been? We've been talking about this for months, all the while enduring dismissive replies from you and your clones.
You obviously have me confused with someone else.

Oh, they do. They've just decided that it should happen in a very specific way.
NO they don't. The article clearly stated that they think fucking should be more than fun. Bullshit. That's all it's supposed to be. At the end of the day, we ain't nothing but mammals, y'know?

I'm not at all surprised. It's been on the cards for years. The right to contraception liberated women in a much truer fashion than 'political suffrage'. The right to abortion liberated women further, in that it actually gave a woman a choice to 'flee the scene of the crime', so to speak - finally actually giving equality.

I have never believed that the anti-abortion faction (or 'Pro-Life' as they'd prefer to be called) was about foetuses. I have never believed they were about the religious sanctity of life, or the right to exist - as they claim.

I've always suspected that what they are REALLY about, is putting women 'back where they belong' (as they see it)... as housewives, barefoot and pregnant - vessels of furtherment of the species, rather than members OF that species.

It fits with the 'patriarchal heirarchy' that so many of the anti-abortionists claim (and demand)... the hardline adherence to the 'women as chattals' aspects of scripture, for example - while they ignore any of the prohibitions and clauses that they are uncomfortable with. (Just in the last year, we've seen the Southern Baptist conventions 're-dedicating' themselves to exactly that kind of interpretation of scripture).

This article just reinforces what we already knew. It's not about the 'children'. It's about taking away choices... taking away RIGHTS to choose.
Yeah, and right wing people also are plottting a brain control device to control your brains! And... And... we're also planning to execute all the liberals. Yeah, yeah, and you're also planning to put them damn negros in their place!
Please man, that kind of insult is really outdated. Right wing-Christians are not frigging anti-choice Nazis. They just don't believe that abortion is right. They have a point. Well, a point to a point. There is scientific proof that a fetus should only be considered human, and therefore have rights, after 24 weeks I believe it is.

Yeah, and right wing people also are plottting a brain control device to control your brains! And... And... we're also planning to execute all the liberals. Yeah, yeah, and you're also planning to put them damn negros in their place!
Please man, that kind of insult is really outdated. Right wing-Christians are not frigging anti-choice Nazis. They just don't believe that abortion is right. They have a point. Well, a point to a point. There is scientific proof that a fetus should only be considered human, and therefore have rights, after 24 weeks I believe it is.
Whatever you may think about abortion, wouldn't you agree that contraception should be allowed at least?

I tried, but had to go throw up so many times I became too weak to read the rest of it. :rolleyes:

I know, it was difficult even reading the post! Doesn't the author know how to write articles? By the third paragraph the reader should at least know what you're talking about, what's your position, and not be bored to tears.

Yeah, and right wing people also are plottting a brain control device to control your brains! And... And... we're also planning to execute all the liberals. Yeah, yeah, and you're also planning to put them damn negros in their place!
Please man, that kind of insult is really outdated. Right wing-Christians are not frigging anti-choice Nazis. They just don't believe that abortion is right. They have a point. Well, a point to a point. There is scientific proof that a fetus should only be considered human, and therefore have rights, after 24 weeks I believe it is.Hey dude--read the article. The connections are clear. The people behind the anti-abortion campaigns are also anti-contraception. Not everyone who is anti-abortion is anti-contraception, but you at least ought to know who's funding the campaign.

Oh yeah--that scientific evidence you mentioned? Doesn't exist. Get over yourself.

I know, it was difficult even reading the post! Doesn't the author know how to write articles? By the third paragraph the reader should at least know what you're talking about, what's your position, and not be bored to tears.
I knew the first two things, and I was bored to the ears.

I recall when the last church I attended ( and, God willing, the VERY last church I'll ever attend! Heh! ) had this massive split, with some people leaving the church because "the preacher doesn't support the idea that women should stay at home and take care of the children." I thought, "WTF, over? Are these people even living on the same damned planet as me?"

I tend to agree that there are some "christians" who think their religion requires them to rail against things of which they disapprove, such as women working outside the home, abortion, contraception, the teaching of science, and on and on, ad nauseum. Fortunately though, there are many Christians who realize that their faith is not dependent on forcing others to comply with their peculiar view on things unrelated to the practice of their faith.

I have never believed that the anti-abortion faction (or 'Pro-Life' as they'd prefer to be called) was about foetuses. I have never believed they were about the religious sanctity of life, or the right to exist - as they claim.

I've always suspected that what they are REALLY about, is putting women 'back where they belong' (as they see it)... as housewives, barefoot and pregnant - vessels of furtherment of the species, rather than members OF that species.


:mad: *resists urge to get into another abortion argument :headbang:

I'm a Catholic. But I support abortion, women's rights, gay rights, contraception, support teaching evolution, and so on. I hate these people who refuse to flow with progress. They're the reason there's so much trouble with these things. They want to revert our society to some church dominated time.

I recall when the last church I attended ( and, God willing, the VERY last church I'll ever attend! Heh! ) had this massive split, with some people leaving the church because "the preacher doesn't support the idea that women should stay at home and take care of the children." I thought, "WTF, over? Are these people even living on the same damned planet as me?"

I tend to agree that there are some "christians" who think their religion requires them to rail against things of which they disapprove, such as women working outside the home, abortion, contraception, the teaching of science, and on and on, ad nauseum. Fortunately though, there are many Christians who realize that their faith is not dependent on forcing others to comply with their peculiar view on things unrelated to the practice of their faith.
Agnostic? Or just disillusioned?

I'm a Catholic. But I support abortion, women's rights, gay rights, contraception, support teaching evolution, and so on. I hate these people who refuse to flow with progress. They're the reason there's so much trouble with these things. They want to revert our society to some church dominated time.

And I hate that being pro-life means people assume you aslo hate homosexuals and dont think women should vote. The argument against abortion is completely legitimate, just because its been highjacked by bigots dosnt take from that.
On topic, contraception is the best alternative to abortion, so Im sure most people in the pro-life camp fully support it.

If the church stopped denouncing contraceptions, then it would reduce the numbder of AIDS infected people, especially in Africa. And it would stop the spread of other STD's.

Agnostic? Or just disillusioned?
Good question.

I still have beliefs, but they're based primarily on science. I suppose you could call me "a deep ecologist," although that can be a bit misleading. As to whether there's a God or not, I suspend judgment. I tend to believe ( although the evidence is rather vague ) that what we refer to as "God" is, in actuality, the universe itself in the process of becoming self-aware.

Two books that greatly influenced me are: The Web of Life (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385476760/103-1197158-0756610?), by Fritjof Capra, and The Conscious Universe (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0387988653/103-1197158-0756610?), by Kafatos and Nadeau. I highly recommend them.

Side note: Eutrusca, take a stroll to Moderation. You may find a couple of posts that surprise you.

Side note: Eutrusca, take a stroll to Moderation. You may find a couple of posts that surprise you.
Heh! Thank you! At least you seem to understand. :fluffle:

Good question.

I still have beliefs, but they're based primarily on science. I suppose you could call me "a deep ecologist," although that can be a bit misleading. As to whether there's a God or not, I suspend judgment. I tend to believe ( although the evidence is rather vague ) that what we refer to as "God" is, in actuality, the universe itself in the process of becoming self-aware.

Two books that greatly influenced me are: The Web of Life (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385476760/103-1197158-0756610?), by Fritjof Capra, and The Conscious Universe (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0387988653/103-1197158-0756610?), by Kafatos and Nadeau. I highly recommend them.
Ok, cool.

I suggest God's Debris, by Scott Adams. He's also the guy who does Dilbert comics.

Heh! Thank you! At least you seem to understand. :fluffle:
Careful. People might get the impression that we like each other or something.

Ok, cool.

I suggest God's Debris, by Scott Adams. He's also the guy who does Dilbert comics.
Nothing personal, but Scott Adams is an Intelligent Design moron. I get the occasional chuckle from Dilbert, but I wouldn't listen to much more than that.

On topic, contraception is the best alternative to abortion, so Im sure most people in the pro-life camp fully support it.

Most of the "pro-life" camp I have met would say that abstinence is the best alternative to any of it. And many believe that certain forms of contraception actually are or could cause abortions, and thus oppose them. Take, for instance, the birth control pill. While it generally blocks ovulation, it does not do so 100%. It is possible that an egg could be conceived in a woman who is on the pill, but fail to implant because of the birth control she is on. An IUD or the morning after pill essentially do the same things - block implantation. There are those who consider such things "abortions".

Most of the "pro-life" camp I have met would say that abstinence is the best alternative to any of it. And many believe that certain forms of contraception actually are or could cause abortions, and thus oppose them. Take, for instance, the birth control pill. While it generally blocks ovulation, it does not do so 100%. It is possible that an egg could be conceived in a woman who is on the pill, but fail to implant because of the birth control she is on. An IUD or the morning after pill essentially do the same things - block implantation. There are those who consider such things "abortions".
Which is precisely what the article is talking about. I swear, most of these people don't read the excerpted articles.

Nothing personal, but Scott Adams is an Intelligent Design moron. I get the occasional chuckle from Dilbert, but I wouldn't listen to much more than that.
I didn't know that. But the book doesn't exactly promote religion, as far as I can tell.

Careful. People might get the impression that we like each other or something.
...you don't? I could have sworn you two were busom buddies...

...you don't? I could have sworn you two were busom buddies...
Oh yeah. Me and Eutrusca, we practically tongue kiss every night around here.

Careful. People might get the impression that we like each other or something.
LOL! Actually, I sometimes admire your staunch positions on things, but I would never, ever tell you that! :D

BTW ... I posted again to that Moderation thread. You might find my response to Fass interesting or amusing ... or both! :D

Nazz: Oh really. More than I needed to know.

Eut: I posted as well.

...you don't? I could have sworn you two were busom buddies...
[ murders Shakespere ] Out! Out, damned Kyronea! :D

Oh yeah. Me and Eutrusca, we practically tongue kiss every night around here.
ROFLMFAO! [ hurls ] :D

Most of the "pro-life" camp I have met would say that abstinence is the best alternative to any of it.

There seems to be a huge difference between how the issue is viewed in European countries and over there in America. Pro-life does not have the same extreme-conservative assosciations here in Ireland anyway.

And many believe that certain forms of contraception actually are or could cause abortions, and thus oppose them. Take, for instance, the birth control pill. While it generally blocks ovulation, it does not do so 100%. It is possible that an egg could be conceived in a woman who is on the pill, but fail to implant because of the birth control she is on. An IUD or the morning after pill essentially do the same things - block implantation. There are those who consider such things "abortions".

Makes sense to me. I draw the line at conception, (I wont go into the reasons why because it has nothing to do with this thread.) so I would be against the morning after pill.
The argument against abortion is about the right to life of the unborn.
The argument against contraception is completely different, it is about the sexual act itself. The two dont necessarily go together.

Careful. People might get the impression that we like each other or something.
Pod person. You won't replicate ol' Dobbs, no way.

Keep back, man - first it was Donald Sutherland, now it's... you.

BY the way, Eutrusca, I think you may have missed the other thread in Moderation, the one that asked them to merge the thread I started last night (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481337) on this very article with yours. Imagine--us being co-owners of a thread! (If they do it, of course.)

ROFLMFAO! [ hurls ] :D
You know you love it, the way my moustache tickles your nose.

BY the way, Eutrusca, I think you may have missed the other thread in Moderation, the one that asked them to merge the thread I started last night (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481337) on this very article with yours. Imagine--us being co-owners of a thread! (If they do it, of course.)
Adoption is just the first step, Nazz.

COMMENTARY: Most of you who have read things I've posted in the past know of my distain for most so-called "protestors," perhaps due at least in part to negative experiences with "anti-war protestors" during the Vietnam war. However, if this type of thing ever gets rolling, I will most assuredly be right there with the other protestors, waving banners and shouting.

Are these people for REAL??? They HAVE to be insane! They just HAVE to be! :mad:


Contra-Contraception (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By RUSSELL SHORTO
Published: May 7, 2006
The English writer Daniel Defoe is best remembered today for creating the ultimate escapist fantasy, "Robinson Crusoe," but in 1727 he sent the British public into a scandalous fit with the publication of a nonfiction work called "Conjugal Lewdness: or, Matrimonial Whoredom." After apparently being asked to tone down the title for a subsequent edition, Defoe came up with a new one — "A Treatise Concerning the Use and Abuse of the Marriage Bed" — that only put a finer point on things. The book wasn't a tease, however. It was a moralizing lecture. After the wanton years that followed the restoration of the monarchy, a time when both theaters and brothels multiplied, social conservatism rooted itself in the English bosom. Self-appointed Christian morality police roamed the land, bent on restricting not only homosexuality and prostitution but also what went on between husbands and wives. [ They visit MY home, they get shot! ]

It was this latter subject that Defoe chose to address. The sex act and sexual desire should not be separated from reproduction, he and others warned, else "a man may, in effect, make a whore of his own wife." To highlight one type of then-current wickedness, Defoe gives a scene in which a young woman who is about to marry asks a friend for some "recipes." "Why, you little Devil, you would not take Physick to kill the child?" the friend asks as she catches her drift. "No," the young woman answers, "but there may be Things to prevent Conception; an't there?" The friend is scandalized and argues that the two amount to the same thing, but the bride to be dismisses her: "I cannot understand your Niceties; I would not be with Child, that's all; there's no harm in that, I hope." One prime objective of England's Christian warriors in the 1720's was to stamp out what Defoe called "the diabolical practice of attempting to prevent childbearing by physical preparations."

The wheels of history have a tendency to roll back over the same ground. For the past 33 years — since, as they see it, the wanton era of the 1960's culminated in the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 — American social conservatives have been on an unyielding campaign against abortion. But recently, as the conservative tide has continued to swell, this campaign has taken on a broader scope. Its true beginning point may not be Roe but Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case that had the effect of legalizing contraception. "We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception."

The American Life League is a lay Catholic organization, and for years — especially since Pope Paul VI's "Humanae Vitae" encyclical of 1968 forbade "any action which either before, at the moment of or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation" — being anti-contraception was largely a Catholic thing. Protestants and other non-Catholics tended to look on curiously as they took part in the general societywide acceptance of various forms of birth control. But no longer. Organizations like the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, which inject a mixture of religion and medicine into the social sphere, operate from a broadly Christian perspective that includes opposition to some forms of birth control. Edward R. Martin Jr., a lawyer for the public-interest law firm Americans United for Life, whose work includes seeking to restrict abortion at the state level and representing pharmacists who have refused to prescribe emergency contraception, told me: "We see contraception and abortion as part of a mind-set that's worrisome in terms of respecting life. If you're trying to build a culture of life, then you have to start from the very beginning of life, from conception, and you have to include how we think and act with regard to sexuality and contraception." Dr. Joseph B. Stanford, who was appointed by President Bush in 2002 to the F.D.A.'s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee despite (or perhaps because of) his opposition to contraception, sounded not a little like Daniel Defoe in a 1999 essay he wrote: "Sexual union in marriage ought to be a complete giving of each spouse to the other, and when fertility (or potential fertility) is deliberately excluded from that giving I am convinced that something valuable is lost. A husband will sometimes begin to see his wife as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification." :rolleyes:

As with other efforts — against gay marriage, stem cell research, cloning, assisted suicide — the anti-birth-control campaign isn't centralized; it seems rather to be part of the evolution of the conservative movement. The subject is talked about in evangelical churches and is on the agenda at the major Bible-based conservative organizations like Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition. It also has its point people in Congress — including Representative Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, Representative Joe Pitts and Representative Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania and Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — all Republicans who have led opposition to various forms of contraception.

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is considered one of the leading intellectual figures of evangelical Christianity in the U.S. In a December 2005 column in The Christian Post titled "Can Christians Use Birth Control?" he wrote: "The effective separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most important defining marks of our age — and one of the most ominous. This awareness is spreading among American evangelicals, and it threatens to set loose a firestorm.. . .A growing number of evangelicals are rethinking the issue of birth control — and facing the hard questions posed by reproductive technologies."

[ This article is NINE pages long! Read the rest of the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin). ]


Thank the stars that the second ammendment is around to let us protect ourselves from those that may abuse the rest of them .
I'd be at that protest.

BY the way, Eutrusca, I think you may have missed the other thread in Moderation, the one that asked them to merge the thread I started last night (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481337) on this very article with yours. Imagine--us being co-owners of a thread! (If they do it, of course.)
:eek:

Yeah, and right wing people also are plottting a brain control device to control your brains! And... And... we're also planning to execute all the liberals. Yeah, yeah, and you're also planning to put them damn negros in their place!
Please man, that kind of insult is really outdated. Right wing-Christians are not frigging anti-choice Nazis. They just don't believe that abortion is right. They have a point. Well, a point to a point. There is scientific proof that a fetus should only be considered human, and therefore have rights, after 24 weeks I believe it is.
if that were their stance why would they outlaw ALL abortion even those that occur before 8 weeks? the vast majority of all abortions occur before 16 weeks and those that occur after are almost always for the health/life of the mother or because of fetal defect.

we're not talking about a reasonable stance to a difficult social problem we're talking about people who would disallow women the freedom of their own medical choices and free use of their own bodies.

Thank the stars that the second ammendment is around to let us protect ourselves from those that may abuse the rest of them .
I'd be at that protest.
Agreed.

I've always known that I didn't agree with the anti-contraception crowd, but this just drives the nails in the coffin. They apparently live in some sort of bubble-universe where STDs don't exist, masturbation is murder, sex outside of marriage will send you to hell ( whether you believe in God or not ), and laytex is only for medical gloves.

People are going to screw! Period! It's the single strongest drive known to mankind. And guess what ... screwing leads to babies unless you prevent it. HELLO!!!

Jeeze. :mad:

I'm a Catholic. But I support abortion, women's rights, gay rights, contraception, support teaching evolution, and so on. I hate these people who refuse to flow with progress. They're the reason there's so much trouble with these things. They want to revert our society to some church dominated time.

The church opposes abortion (as do I) since there are other alternatives, and are opposed to, what usually ends up being, murder of innocents (thus are pro death penatly to a degree). In the cases of rape/incest, which results in pregnancy only in extremely rare cases, the baby is still innocent. In the cases of "accidents," there is the choice of adoption.

No one is against gay rights, we just don't want them to get married. They get bathhouses and civil unions, we get marriage.

The church is split over contraception, since alot of the bishops of canada have found nothing wrong withit. The pope that condemned contraception in the first place took the minority opinion of a group of theologians.

The catholic church condemns anyone going against evolution, but also condemns the atheism that permeates the study of evolution.

Most of the "pro-life" camp I have met would say that abstinence is the best alternative to any of it. And many believe that certain forms of contraception actually are or could cause abortions, and thus oppose them. Take, for instance, the birth control pill. While it generally blocks ovulation, it does not do so 100%. It is possible that an egg could be conceived in a woman who is on the pill, but fail to implant because of the birth control she is on. An IUD or the morning after pill essentially do the same things - block implantation. There are those who consider such things "abortions".

Technically speaking, the begining of a "new life" could be best defined as the very moment of fusion of the two gametes with the formation of the zygote. Starting from this single "fusion cell" all other cells will have the same, "new", DNA. So, theoretically, the provoked failure of implantation could be considered "abortion" if the latter means "termination of an unborn life" while, should we take the more classic definition of the word as "termination of a pregnancy", it's not (before the implantation, the woman is by definition NOT pregnant).

However, word games apart, the position refered in the article as well as many other "pro life" arguments in the discussion are pretty much nonsensical or even socially irresponsible.

Abstinence: this is the most unrealistic, utopic and idiotic approach ever suggested on the sex/procreation/STD issue. You CANNOT ignore a major (alongside eating, sleeping and generally surviving) biological drive. People naturally want to have sex. Think calmly over your life: you'll be surprised at how many of our desires, actions and behaviours are steered by this very drive. Only to mention the most stereotypical ones, why do we (want to) buy attractive clothes and accessories and what's with our obsession with sports cars? I will push the argument further to state that the most rigid supporters of abstinence are inescapably people with important psychological issues or at least that their behaviour and "moral values" are no other than a psychological defense against uncertainty, insecurity or rejection (past or feared future one).

Contraception: having sex, even upon ovulation, does not always lead to a pregnancy. It's a probability game. Contraception is about "lowering the odds" while fertility counseling is about increasing them. There is no "new life created" here, just a probability that it might... So I find argumentation against contraception as "pro life" extremely stretched and therefore invalid.

Abortion: I don't think that any sane person is "pro abortion" in the sense that considers it as a desirable event. Even the most ardent supporters of the right to abortion consider it as the "last chance safety net". Women should definately retain this right, but not without strict regulation and control of what can be done when as well as safety regulations for their own health. Primitive abortion techniques have been described even in the ancient times, so this is not a real novelty. Undesired pregnancies existed before radical religious bigots appeared on the face of the earth. If you are leaning to the rhetorics about alarmingly increasing rates you might also want to consider which social groups are part of this increase, which factors play a decisive role in the mother's choice and therefore what other measures can be taken to keep it down instead of altogether prohibiting it. Some hints:
- bigotry and adverse social position of single or otherwise troubled mothers and their children (neighborhood, school, work environment etc.).
- availability of social services for single mother and child.
- economic factors.
- informed use of contraceptive methods to avoid undesired pregnancies. Therefore an ardent "pro life" dude that also urges against contraception has really NO CLUE about how things work out (or simply ignores his/her own logic).

The church opposes abortion (as do I) since there are other alternatives, and are opposed to, what usually ends up being, murder of innocents (thus are pro death penatly to a degree). In the cases of rape/incest, which results in pregnancy only in extremely rare cases, the baby is still innocent. In the cases of "accidents," there is the choice of adoption.

No one is against gay rights, we just don't want them to get married. They get bathhouses and civil unions, we get marriage.

The church is split over contraception, since alot of the bishops of canada have found nothing wrong withit. The pope that condemned contraception in the first place took the minority opinion of a group of theologians.

The catholic church condemns anyone going against evolution, but also condemns the atheism that permeates the study of evolution.
That's about the stupidest thing I've ever read around here, and that's really saying something.

That's about the stupidest thing I've ever read around here, and that's really saying something.
LMAO! I will refrain from saying the obvious! :D

LMAO! I will refrain from saying the obvious! :D
Well, it was certainly stupider than anything I've ever read from you (though that's not saying much). :p :D
Forgive the joke--I'm onto the third bottle of wine--shared, not alone

Well, it was certainly stupider than anything I've ever read from you (though that's not saying much). :p :D
Forgive the joke--I'm onto the third bottle of wine--shared, not alone
LMAO! Strange ... I was thinking much the same thing about things I've read from you! :D

Thank the stars that the second ammendment is around to let us protect ourselves from those that may abuse the rest of them .
I'd be at that protest.

Same here, wearing something in a .40 S&W, methinks.

Has anyone noticed that while all these "Right To Life" people are clamoring about the rights of a foetus, children have no rights at all? Beyond doing whatever their parents tell them to do that is. Assuming that is some sort of right of course.......

Same here, wearing something in a .40 S&W, methinks.

Has anyone noticed that while all these "Right To Life" people are clamoring about the rights of a foetus, children have no rights at all? Beyond doing whatever their parents tell them to do that is. Assuming that is some sort of right of course.......
I saw a nun once say that they weren't right-to-life; they're right-to-birth, and once that happens, you're on your own. That pretty much sums it up.

And isn't that special?

Well it's this simple - if people like that ever came to true power, I would start a secessionist or rebel movement. I suspect I'm not entirely alone in that sentiment.

LMAO! I will refrain from saying the obvious! :D
Total concurance. Though the debate isn't about gay men, thats another thread. This is about contraception, right?

Yeah, and right wing people also are plottting a brain control device to control your brains! And... And... we're also planning to execute all the liberals. Yeah, yeah, and you're also planning to put them damn negros in their place!
Please man, that kind of insult is really outdated. Right wing-Christians are not frigging anti-choice Nazis. They just don't believe that abortion is right. They have a point. Well, a point to a point. There is scientific proof that a fetus should only be considered human, and therefore have rights, after 24 weeks I believe it is.

I didn't say it was a 'right wing' conspiracy - I said it was about elements of the anti-abortion lobby.

The telling thing is - you put YOURSELF in the bracket I discussed... I didn't.

I know a number of Christians - some, very well. SOme of them, I would agree with you - they are not about removing choice from others - because they see THEIR relationship with God, as being a personal one - between THEM and GOD. But - I also know the 'other kind'... the kind that institutes local ordinances to keep a town 'dry' (Demorest, Georgia) because they believe alcohol is 'evil'... so you just can't get it in that town. And - that doesn't mean Christians are limited - that means the casual Atheist passing through Demorest ALSO cannot get alcohol in that town.

You'll notice I didn't dump on religion, or even on Christianity.

What I did do - is talk about people within those groups - and, the policies of one group in particular - the Southern Baptists. You may choose to argue against what I said, but the change in their official standing is a real and recent thing - officially endorsed last year, and was the reason that Jimmy Carter chose to leave the Southern Baptist convention.

Not wanting to go deep into it - I, personally, don't think 'abortion' is 'right'. But, I don't think it is MY right to oppress other people with that belief. That's the difference.

Also - let's not get into the whole 'scientific proof' thing. It wouldn't be pretty, and the evidence just doesn't support your claim. Let's keep it ON the topic, shall we?

The church opposes abortion (as do I) since there are other alternatives, and are opposed to, what usually ends up being, murder of innocents (thus are pro death penatly to a degree). In the cases of rape/incest, which results in pregnancy only in extremely rare cases, the baby is still innocent. In the cases of "accidents," there is the choice of adoption.

No one is against gay rights, we just don't want them to get married. They get bathhouses and civil unions, we get marriage.

The church is split over contraception, since alot of the bishops of canada have found nothing wrong withit. The pope that condemned contraception in the first place took the minority opinion of a group of theologians.

The catholic church condemns anyone going against evolution, but also condemns the atheism that permeates the study of evolution.

No one is opposed to gay rights - we just want them to have DIFFERENT rights to 'us'?

Marriage predates your church, my friend... by possibly uncountable thousands of years - and it hasn't always had this tight urge to limit itself to 'one man and one woman'. That is an artifact of YOUR religion - not mine (since I'm an Atheist) - and, as such, has no place being THE LAW of the land.

As to 'accidental' preganancy - why shoul the 'mother' of an accidental pregnancy be FORCED to carry that accident to term? Just to satisfy you?

The problem with most people's arguments against abortion, is that their argument is based on an idea which just is NOT compatible with the modern world.

Example - Church A denies abortion because the Bible says it is bad (they think).

Problem - in Biblical times, if you couldn't feed an extra mouth, you might have been able to find some unclaimed land and grow something. You might have been able to find some unclaimed land and gather something, or hunt something. You might have just set out to walk to a place with more food (as Joseph's brothers do).

Modern Reality - if you can't feed an extra mouth, you are not going to find unclaimed ANYTHING in the cities, or the suburbs... or anywhere else in the country. You also can't just casually walk across borders anymore.

What was 'practical' for preserving a religious group in a climate of hostility, that NEEDED to boost it's numbers - is NOT practical in 21st century America, on the 21st century planet.

Example - Church A denies abortion because the Bible says it is bad (they think).

Problem - in Biblical times, if you couldn't feed an extra mouth, you might have been able to find some unclaimed land and grow something. You might have been able to find some unclaimed land and gather something, or hunt something. You might have just set out to walk to a place with more food (as Joseph's brothers do).
More likely what would have happened would be that the child (or another member of the family) would starve to death, which is what would happen to unwanted children in this country if we outlawed abortion for poor people (which is what any abortion really is, because the wealthy will never do without that control over their bodies). So which is crueler--an abortion or a child starving to death? I know what my answer is.

More likely what would have happened would be that the child (or another member of the family) would starve to death, which is what would happen to unwanted children in this country if we outlawed abortion for poor people (which is what any abortion really is, because the wealthy will never do without that control over their bodies). So which is crueler--an abortion or a child starving to death? I know what my answer is.

Absolutely. I've been poor (and I mean, the bad kind) and I really would NOT have wanted to bring a child into that. Compare the clinical excision of a clump of cells, with a conscious breathing baby being the victim of ANOTHER person's misfortunes... be it starvation, exposure (high fuel prices - this last winter, my local gas company cut me off with a two-month-old baby in the house, because they didn't want installments, they wanted paid-up), or a history of being passed around from adoptive or foster parents and orphanages...

I'm going to opt for the 'short, sharp shock' that occurs before the conceptus even has the CAPACITY to suffer.

Anti-abortion platforms are NOT about what is 'best' for 'the child'... they are about whatever it takes to make sure that EVERY fertilised egg gets a chance to die in pain or not - as according to 'god's plan' - as THEY see it.

The simple fact that fully a third of all fertilised eggs just 'drop out' is apparently irrelevent in that school of thought.

The simple fact that fully a third of all fertilised eggs just 'drop out' is apparently irrelevent in that school of thought.
Let's be brutal here--reality is irrelevant to most of these people.

Let's be brutal here--reality is irrelevant to most of these people.

Certainly 'reality' as it appertains to OTHER people.

I find this article most disturbing. I see myself as a conservative Christian, but I belong to a church that understands that sex is not just for procreation... It's a way for two people to express love and bond together.

While encouraged to have as many children as we can afford to support, it is left up to the judgement of the couple to decide whether they can handle more. If they decide they can't, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with using birth control. (Barring abortion as a form of birth control) In fact, I once had some questions on a related subject for my bishop, and he answered by saying that the Church did not make its business monitoring what people do in their bedrooms. As long as it wasn't coercion or anything like that.

The idea that sex should be reserved for the sole purpose of procreation is unrealistic and contrary to how we were made.

Ooh, nice! Some morons to beat down in a fairly friendly environment! Such a show I'll put up! I'll get to beat these people down on arguing, anime-style, like those animes in which the guy describes what he's doing in the fights! Zankoku na tenshi no yôo ni!

This is one of my best attack moves, Machine Gun Point, also called (by me :p ) Hyakuman Honto, or "a million truths". Notice how I list all their mistakes in short sentences, to deliver the ending of a crescendo:

We're talking about people here that forget that God is supposed to let people have free will, that believe that God is merciful but wants raped women to suffer for his benefit, that think that the babies should also have the benefit of living feeling unwanted and uncared for. They also seem to think that the man should pay for whatever pleasure he has, in the form of suffering through a child. Also, their god seemingly wants people to die from AIDS, such a merciful god they think they have! In short, they believe God is the DEVIL.

Secondly, watch this, this should be interesting. I call it Death Seed, because it SOUNDS like a harmless point until I build on it.

They believe in a book that says God is the one that judges people, and that we don't know how people will be judged, only God knows. The same book says God gave the people free will. As such, not only they seem to be taking on the role of judge, they also want to attack the free will of people. Thus, they're doing the Devil's work, by acting like Lucifer in one hand and by trying to take away something god-given on the other.

Now, my third move, which I baptized Rose Whip, for the STYLE. :D This move is a really nice one in which you compliment the target on their logic and themselves, only to use that same compliment to de-value the opponent. As such:

Well, they seem to be really concerned citizens, who care about the way their nation is headed on issues that matter to them. Unfortunately, that concern makes them misguided at best, dangerous at worse, considering that they not only twist the words of the Bible, but also attack the very freedoms upon which America was built out of those concerns.

And now, to end, I'll not use any trick - I don't have to, because they're dead weight after the things I pointed out. No, no. For the end, I will apply a nice quote that's vaguely related to this issue, but not much. Think of it as a "victory pose" if you will.

What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculties! In form and moving, how express and admirable! In action, how like an angel! In aprehension, how like a god! The beauty of the world, the paragon of animals!

That's it, the idiots done in, with STYLE! *Imitates Steve Irwin* Isn't she a beauty?

Makes sense to me. I draw the line at conception, (I wont go into the reasons why because it has nothing to do with this thread.) so I would be against the morning after pill.

Are you also, then, against the regular birth control pill? The morning after pill is nothing more than a high dose of the same hormones in a regular birth control pill, and does nothing that regular birth control cannot....

Technically speaking, the begining of a "new life" could be best defined as the very moment of fusion of the two gametes with the formation of the zygote.

Technically speaking, you can't really have a "new life" until you have an entity that, itself, meets the definition of life, but lets not get into that in Eut's thread.

However, word games apart, the position refered in the article as well as many other "pro life" arguments in the discussion are pretty much nonsensical or even socially irresponsible.

This I definitely agree with.

Abortion: I don't think that any sane person is "pro abortion" in the sense that considers it as a desirable event.

Indeed. And many of us are pro-choice, while simultaneously being anti-abortion. We do not agree with the choice (in most cases anyways) and would encourage women to explore other options, but still feel that the final choice must be left up to the pregnant woman...