Contraception: Boon to Humankind or 'Gateway to the Culture of Death'

[SEVERUSMAX]

Is Pure taking his Devil's Advocate seriously this time or what? Really, bud, this is getting creepy.

 

[Pure]

Lady J There are other reasons why murder is a bad idea besides 'cuz God sez so'

P: So being in scripture in not a problem for you. But you want 'other reasons.'

To help me understand, run by your thinking on this example:

Thou shalt not commit adultery. In your penal code?

---
sev, it seems the 'right' are hiding out from this thread, so one can't just let vague or willd statements go unexamined.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Is Pure taking his Devil's Advocate seriously this time or what? Really, bud, this is getting creepy.

Somebody's gotta do it...

 

[LadyJeanne]

There are other reasons why murder is a bad idea besides 'cuz God sez so'

So being in scripture in not a problem for you. But you want 'other reasons.'

To help me understand, run by your thinking on this example:

Thou shalt not commit adultery. In your penal code?

Penal code? Nope.

My personal penile code? Yep. If my hypothetical-hubbie were to be having sex with others, I'd have something to say about it, but Justice Adultery A. Sin need not stick her nose into it.

 

[Pure]

but LJ, there are lots of nasty effects, including beatings, killings.

and they exceed, IMO, those of burglary, for example.

and there are those who say fucking my neighbor's wife is a teeny bit

antisocial.

 

[LadyJeanne]

but LJ, there are lots of nasty effects, including beatings, killings.

and they exceed, IMO, those of burglary, for example.

and there are those who say fucking my neighbor's wife is a teeny bit

antisocial.

Beatings and killings and burglary - there are laws in place for any nasty consequences of adultery or stupidity.

Antisocial, yep, that's where my penile code comes into the picture. It's spelled DIVORCE (which, I'm told, is against God's religion...again, don't care).

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Beatings and killings and burglary - there are laws in place for any nasty consequences of adultery or stupidity.

Antisocial, yep, that's where my penile code comes into the picture. It's spelled DIVORCE (which, I'm told, is against God's religion...again, don't care).

Good answer. Although God seems to have 2 different opinions about divorce, or is that 4, according to the Bible. Moses and Paul are cool with it, Jesus slams it, and Malachi says that God hates it. Seems that God has as hard of a time deciding morality as us mortals at times.

Adultery is a breach of contract issue, in terms of civil law. Best to leave it there. Grounds for divorce, no matter what the sex of the other person. And for us swingers, not an issue at all.

 

[Pure]

antisocial

but Lady J, if you agree there are antisocial effects** of a non trivial nature*, surely that's a reason to put it in the penal code. moreover, on Colly's criterion, this is not just a fuss point of a sect, it's greatly disapproved by a vast majority, probably all major religions.

as to waiting for other effects before bringing the law into play, there are a good many laws that look at situations *likely* to be leading to no good, like against lurking around a dwelling place, or in our area, carrying around a set of burglarly tools.



-----

*i.e it's not like farting in public.

**harms to the fabric of society and/or harms to others

 

[john-the-author]

I got asked to stick an oar in, but everyone's saying about what I'd have to say already: contraception is good, more available contraception is very good, abortion should be vastly more available than it is now, if you don't like it, then don't use it.

C. Everett Koop, for whom I have a lot of respect, was a pediatric and neo-natal surgeon and, after some years doing this, came to the conclusion that abortion is wrong because he really is working on living beings even if they aren't self-sufficient. While I'm not sure where this actually happens, I think that a case can be made that I would listen to about "life" occurring somewhere in there between conception and birth, viability notwithstanding.

Nevertheless, Koop's opinion was that "Okay, given that I think abortion is wrong and we should prevent it as much as possible, the only intelligent way to prevent it is to make sure everyone knows what's happening and has easy access to contraception so we minimize anyone's need for an abortion in the first place." I think he's right about that, at least that we need to prevent the need for abortion in the first place. When and where abortion is wrong is not something I have the wisdom to call and I'm not sure as a man that I even have the right.

I've known at least half a dozen women who've had an abortion and a friend of mine was a nurse at an abortion clinic and saw hundreds over the years she was there. No-one in her or my experience has ever been casual about an abortion. They thought about it and none of them considered it "just another form of contraception." I think any argument about people being casual about this is completely specious and does not take into account any of the facts.

I saw a truck in Costco last week that had the following bumper stickers: "We Vote Pro-Life" next to ""NRA" near "U.S.M.C. SNIPER." Well, people are entitled to make choices about when and where life's important, I guess.

 

[john-the-author]

Mark Souder

I noticed that one of the articles that Pure quoted mentions Mark Souder. As a recent resident of Indiana and in Mark Souder's district, I can state that Mark Souder is a greasy little pimp who, in a previous day and age, would be running around making lists of "fornicators" to bring them to social justice. His views on sexuality are certainly distinct, but he's an asshole, plain and simple, whose views have nothing to do with science and everything to do with the brand of conservative Christianity that's endemic to the area.

I agree with the comment later in the article that the peer review process has been undermined. This is just more Christian fascism pretending to be science, good social policy, or even intelligence.

So, who's responsible for the switcheroo? Two senior scientists connected to the conference said they were told that Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., had intervened. Souder is a longtime antagonist of comprehensive sexual education who helped to spearhead congressional hearings on the human papillomavirus in 2004 that were a thinly veiled excuse to poke holes in condom use. According to the two senior scientists, Souder reportedly reviewed materials for next week's conference and contacted an official at the Department of Health and Human Services who then leaned on the CDC to add more "balance" to the abstinence discussion. If Smith had not been removed from the panel, the scientists say, the symposium would have been canceled. The CDC confirmed that questions had been raised about the "balance of opinions" on the original symposium. Souder's office did not return repeated phone calls requesting comment.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Government is coercion. Legislation is force. Such power must be used sparingly. The people who overreact to adultery with acts of violence are responsible for their violence. Passing the buck by using adultery as an excuse doesn't quite cut it. Deal with the actual threats to one's life, liberty, and property. Not acts like adultery. They're matters of civil law.

 

[Pure]

sev, i'm just trying to get to the bottom of this. you can't just say 'adultery' is civil law. as you yourself said it was on the books in AZ till recently. it was on the books in MASS in the 17th century and probably stayed there until this century.

it's easy to see why some act with no social consequences, like masturbation, should not be in the criminal code. adultery often has bloody consequences, so why not?

it's easy to see (now) why acts with only religious consequences shouldn't be in the Criminal Code--example missing Sunday church service (was on the books, in Mass, however!).

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

sev, i'm just trying to get to the bottom of this. you can't just say 'adultery' is civil law. as you yourself said it was on the books in AZ till recently. it was on the books in MASS in the 17th century and probably stayed there until this century.

it's easy to see why some act with no social consequences, like masturbation, should not be in the criminal code. adultery often has bloody consequences, so why not?

it's easy to see (now) why acts with only religious consequences shouldn't be in the Criminal Code--example missing Sunday church service (was on the books, in Mass, however!).

You really want to blame adulterers for the overreaction? To use force to punish people for something these days IS about civil law? Is it not better to encourage people to handle others' misconduct toward them like grown-ups?

 

[Pure]

What we call 'theocracy' is promoted by group that is not well known, but now very influential, i.e., the Christian Reconstruction movement.
They are Calvinists stemming from --IMO-- a line going back to the New England Puritans.


brief statement of Christian Reconstruction.

http://www.dabney.com/charles/Sandlin-CR.html


A webpage with several good links, pro and con

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html#foreword

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Society has already experimented with controlling people's sex lives, supposedly to prevent social ills. It hasn't worked. No sense in reinstating a proven failure.

 

[Pure]

well, it's been reinstated in several locations, such as Iran. no half liberal place in the Islamic world is free of the threat--i think of Egypt for example. the progress of 'enlightenment' is NOT a simply upward trending curve.

what are the prospects in the US? are limitations on abortion merely the thin edge of the wedge, not merely regarding abortion, but a number of other vital issues (e.g., distribution of condoms is AIDS infected areas).

do you know the 'culture of lfe' and 'pro life' groups--now with official US gov't links, if they are not actually gov't representatives-- are setting up ties with reps of the muslim countries? the idea is to work on common goals. one such goal might be to get the UN out of supporting access to abortion and contraception, etc.

 

[herecomestherain]

Beyond all the arguments about religion and abortion covered in the New York Times article can I just say how very creepy I found this whole idea - I actually felt a little physically unwell. Why not just kit our daughters out in chastity belts and make a ceremony of handing the key on...geezus where are the feminists when you need them!

"In addition to providing an information center for the abstinence industry that has blossomed in recent years, she takes her message directly to kids. Besides "Girls Gone Mild," she sponsors "Purity Balls," which fathers attend with their teenage daughters. "We think the relationship between fathers and their daughters is the key," she told me. At the purity ball, a father gives a "purity ring" to his daughter — a symbol of the promise she makes to maintain her virginity for her future husband. Then, during her marriage ceremony, the daughter gives the ring to her new husband. Abstinence Clearinghouse's Web site advertises the purity ball as an event "which celebrates your 'little girl' and her gift of sexual purity."

My friend Tony Comstock wrote a spirited piece on his blog today in response to the first article. His words echo much of my personal sentiment when the good fellows of some religious group presume to tell me about what might be right or wrong in my bedroom. In part he says --

"But I deeply resent the implication, the assertion that by taking steps to avoid an unplanned pregnancy, or engaging in intimate acts that could never result in pregnancy that we have somehow degraded our love for one another, or debased the intimate time we spend together. I resent it when someone says that about my wearing a condom or my wife using contraceptives, and I resent it when someone says that about two men loving one another or two women loving one another. However it’s said, it’s an outright assault on the most precious, personal aspect of the relationship between me and my wife."

More here.

 

[elsol]

I thought this issue was decided...

AIDS was God's way of saying wear a raincoat.

Oh wait... I got my message crossed, he sent it to kill the 'undesirables'... well, I'm soooo glad God understands the concept of collateral damage.

Maybe we should dig up Zeus and have him talk to God... lightning bolts would get the message across so much better.

I mean if the gay guy next to me got hit by a lightning bolt out of the blue... I would NEVER suck a dick.

Oh wait... I dont' suck dick anyway.

Make that if a lesbian got hit by a lightning bolt out of the blue... i would never eat bush....

Without a lightning rod nearby.

(What can I say... the ladies love the oral!)

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[R. Richard]

Those who want tom mandate the behavior of individuals via government fiat should study the history of the Amana colony in Iowa.

The Amana colony was established by German immigrants. The colony had a strong religious and moral underpinning with a lot of reasonably attractive ideas. Then, the government of Iowa killed the Amana colony. Specifically what the government of Iowa did was to build a highway past the Amana colony. When the highway was finished, the young people of the Amana colony split for the big city. The colony then folded.

 

[shereads]

Those of us who embrace the Culture of Death will be so much happier in the end. "Whee! We're here!" It'll be like arriving at Disney World. For everybody else, dying will be a major buzz-kill.

 

[Pure]

wanna know something funny?

the Ayn Rand cultist have the same maneuver; their ethics represent 'life' and are 'objective.' ours represent 'death' and are subjective.

Rand, like the Pope, believes it's a problem of 'relativism': everyone thinks they can make up their values JP Sartre style (though he never quite believed that).

life v. death is a wonderful debating maneuver if you can fence in your opponent on the death side.

Bush has appropriated 'culture of life,' and i think the Protestants want to join in, and the Catholics are happy to have allies.

---
psst. notice not a single social conservative has ventured to this thread and only a couple have voted.

 

[shereads]

t
Bush has appropriated 'culture of life,'

He's leaving quite the trail of dead bodies in his wake, though. "Collateral damage," I believe it's called when the lives are in the way and not sacred.

I'll bet GWB can give you a more accurate count of aborted American fetuses per year than Iraqi civilians - born and unborn - who died during Shock & Awe and as a direct result of his policies.

 

[LadyJeanne]

He's leaving quite the trail of dead bodies in his wake, though. "Collateral damage," I believe it's called when the lives are in the way and not sacred.

I'll bet GWB can give you a more accurate count of aborted American fetuses per year than Iraqi civilians - born and unborn - who died during Shock & Awe and as a direct result of his policies.

That's cuz he's got the 'merkans wiretapped and Googled thoroughly. Big Brother knows if you'be been good or bad. *nods*

 

[Pure]

interestingly the protestant pro life is pro war (e,g, pro invading Iraq or whomever GWB says needs to feel 'shock and awe'); the catholics(Vatican) are more anti war now (though traditionally they defend 'just war') and the Vatican is rather pro Arab, besides--a heritage of Catholic anti semitism.

protestant 'lifers' are pro capital punishment, as well, while the catholic, from the Pope down are against it except in rare cases. Sister Prejean is quite admirable, IMO.

if the two groups are going to unite in political action, they have to set aside those diffs-- small price to pay for power to control suckee, fuckee, which holes are legitimate receptacles, etc. and telecommunication and internet.

(I think the catholics are more consistent, except around contraception; i think they got boxed in re the pill and it will take a century to get out of the bind, by which time there won't be a 'pill,' just a switch in your robotic panel on the side of your head.)

PS: Interesting point about collateral damage, sher. The 'lifers' rationalize capital punishment as being against the guilty, and of course 'guilty nation' is part of the 'just war' argument [now mounted more by protestants]. "Lifers" defend *innocent life*, i.e., the unborn.

Yet collateral casualties are 'innocent life' ( even assuming the Iraqi fighter are 'guilty' of something). Hmmm. Sounds like it's time for the doctrine of Double Effect!

 

[shereads]

Beyond all the arguments about religion and abortion covered in the New York Times article can I just say how very creepy I found this whole idea - I actually felt a little physically unwell.

That's how most people of both sexes would feel if they followed the anti-choice train of thought from a theoretical ideal to the practical implications of enforcing such views as law:

If it becomes illegal to terminate a pregnancy, how will you guarantee equal protection under the law to all fetuses? Will only the fetuses of the poor be protected, while women of means can murder their babies during a weekend trip outside the U.S.? Will we confiscate passports? Require women of childbearing age to check in with clinics like criminals visiting their parole officers? How else can you assure that no pre-born children are murdered?

If terminating a pregnancy at any stage is murder - the 'morning-after pill' for example - then is a pill that prevents conception also criminal? The act of taking either pill is the same. Before sex, after sex. The difference is a matter of hours, the chemical components of two pills, and the unconfirmed possibility that fertilization might have taken place. Does one pill make someone a murderer, while the other just means she doesn't value life?

When you assume the right to intrude in the bedrooms, doctors' offices and bodies of other people because of your unproven belief that a baby citizen springs into existence the moment a sperm pokes an ovum, then you should be prepared to answer some bizarre questions. Because - God forbid - if you right-to-lifers get your way, the question of whether a particular pill was swallowed before or after two people fucked, will eventually end up before a jury in a criminal trial. With or without proof that the 'victim' ever existed.

If your grand-daughter is the defendant, you might begin to understand why Herecomestherain and a lot of other women feel sick when we consider a future ruled by your 'culture of life.'

Does anyone really want a law whose enforcement depends on knowing what microscopic events may or may not have taken place inside someone's uterus?

Sure they do. Once porn is outlawed, the court transcripts from criminal cases of birth-control will be the next best thing.


Up next: random traffic stops to identify men with illegal vasectomies!

(•)(•)