I know this is fruitless, but...
People can exercise freedom of religion by choosing not to use contraceptives, themselves. Your religion dictates that contraceptives are immoral? Fine, don't use contraceptives.
Preventing OTHER people from using contraceptives is something else entirely.
Sure, just like slavery, stoning, lies, etc.
Requiring something of yourself and requiring something of others is different, period.
If you'd like to make the case that nobody should use contraceptives, go for it.
I can rather easily make the case that nobody should engage in stoning or the ownership of slaves (though lies doesn't seem to fit in there, unless we're talking about under oath).
Some of the posters on this thread are apparently not familiar with the decisions of the Supreme Court on this matter--
Griswold vs. Connecticut clearly points out, as Judge Brennan commented:
"If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single,to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a preson as the decision whether to bear or beget a child"
(The discovery of the bogus right of privacy is a matter for another thread, BUT, the USSC is clear--People have a right to use contraceptives)
The American Life league was referenced. I am not sure as to whether they have 54 dues paying members or 68 dues paying members but their stance against contraception cuts no ice with the American public.
The giant Drug Store chain- Walgreen's- suspended four of its pharmacists recently because they refused to sell contraceptives( allegedly because of religious scruples).
The Republican House and Senate members who are running for election in November 2006 will not make a plea to stop the sale of contraceptives.
They may make pleas to stop "partial birth abortion" or try to make laws which would cut abortion down, such as parental notification, but they will say nothing about cutting out the use of contraceptives.
Sure hope that's the case.
Griswold vs. Connecticut is certainly encouraging, in that it exists and is so clear, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be struck down at some point in the future.
Let me clarify that I started this not because I personally think it is more likely than unlikely that use of contraception will be outlawed in the near future (while I may be overoptimistic, I don't). Rather, I started this because there are definitely elements on the religious right who are agitating for such a thing -- for people to stop using contraception -- and I think that spectre is sufficiently unifying for mainstream voters ("ack!") that drawing attention to such agitation and opposing it would be beneficial for the Democrats.
I think the more Democrats using birth control, the better.
Now, there's a cause I could support!!
The left doesn't give a **** about unifying or mainstream voters.
I think Howard is proving that by his lies on abortion statistics.
I have been assigned as one of the "Christian Right" by most of you, so I'll speak on their behalf believing that I am a member of the majority within that group:
1) I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with contraceptives. Most of my friends, family, and colleagues are religious and I don't know of a single one of them who has any problem whatsoever with contraceptives.
2) I think any man or woman, having sex, who doesn't want a pregnancy and doesn't use contraceptives to be 100% irresponsible, but I don't want any group, including government, to have the right to tell them what they must or must not do on that score. I do think there is room for some regulation on irresponsible abortions that would not be excessively restrictive or oppressive. (Roe v Wade provides room for such regulation.)
3) I have no problem with public schools teaching appropriate necessary information about the process of sex, the cause of pregnancy and/or STD, and how it can be prevented. I strongly advocate that abstinance and/or sterilization to be taught as the number one and only sure fire way to prevent pregnancy and/or STD.
4) I have a huge problem with public schools advocating students having sex, abortions, or any other issue of that sort that is not directly related to biological science.
5) I do have a problem with schools routinely passing out condoms to students as I see this as advocacy for the students having sex. If they insist on doing this, however, they need to find a way to persuade the kids to only have sex Monday through Friday and never on weekends, holidays, spring break, winter vacation, or over the summer etc. when the school isn't open.
6) I think all merchants should be able to sell any legal substance they are licensed to sell including contraceptives. I think any merchant who has a moral problem with any substance or service, including contraceptives, should not be required to sell or provide such product and/or service, and I think any community should be able to regulate what will and will not be morally/socially acceptable within their domain.
So there it is. This is what I believe to be the position of the large majority of the Religious Right.
Foxfyre wrote:I have been assigned as one of the "Christian Right" by most of you, so I'll speak on their behalf believing that I am a member of the majority within that group:
Thanks for laying it out, Foxfyre. It seems that you and I agree for a change; anti-contraception policies would be so far-out they wouldn't fly for the Republicans -- not even with the Religious Right. Perhaps there are enough advocats of such policies that the Democrats can use them for a slippery slope campaign. ("Where will this all stop as long as the Republicans are in charge?") But I doubt this strawman would be strong enough even for that.
Come to think of it, I can even back up this point with compulsive theological authority:
[i]Harry Blackitt:[/i] Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed.
[i]Mrs. Blackitt:[/i] What are we dear?
[i]Harry Blackitt:[/i] Protestant, and fiercely proud of it.
[i]Mrs. Blackitt:[/i] Hmm. Well, why do they have so many children?
[i]Harry Blackitt:[/i] Because... every time they have sexual intercourse, they have to have a baby.
[i]Mrs. Blackitt:[/i] But it's the same with us, Harry.
[i]Harry Blackitt:[/i] What do you mean?
[i]Mrs. Blackitt:[/i] Well, I mean, we've got two children, and we've had sexual intercourse twice.
[i]Harry Blackitt:[/i] That's not the point. We could have it any time we wanted.
[i]Mrs. Blackitt:[/i] Really?
[i]Harry Blackitt:[/i] Oh, yes, and, what's more, because we don't believe in all that Papist claptrap, we can take precautions.
[i]Mrs. Blackitt:[/i] What, you mean... lock the door?
[i]Harry Blackitt:[/i] No, no. I mean, because we are members of the Protestant Reformed Church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue.
[i]Mrs. Blackitt:[/i] What d'you mean?
[i]Harry Blackitt:[/i] I could, if I wanted, have sexual intercourse with you...
[i]Mrs. Blackitt:[/i] Oh, yes, Harry.
[i]Harry Blackitt:[/i] ...and, by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller, I could insure... that, when I came off, you would not be impregnated.
[i]Mrs. Blackitt:[/i] Ooh.
[i]Harry Blackitt:[/i] That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas...
[sniff]
[i]Harry Blackitt:[/i] ... and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom. Oh, no. I can wear French Ticklers if I want.
[i]Mrs. Blackitt:[/i] You what?
[i]Harry Blackitt:[/i] French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.
[i]Mrs. Blackitt:[/i] Have you got one?
[i]Harry Blackitt:[/i] Have I got one? Uh, well, no, but I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'
[i]Mrs. Blackitt:[/i] Well, why don't you?
[i]Harry Blackitt:[/i] But they - Well, they cannot, 'cause their church never made the great leap out of the Middle Ages and the domination of alien Episcopal supremacy.
Source: Python, M.:
The Meaning of Life. Universal Pictures (1983)
Indeed. :-)
Well, I guess the next thing to determine is whether it actually is a strawman. After reading the article, (including evidence of how Bush has been pushing abstinence-only sex education), I came away with the impression that it wasn't just the lunatic fringe.
I'll keep my eyes open for more evidence one way or the other.
I think that if it's an actual movement with some power, it is to the Democrats' benefit to point it out and counteract it.
There is little doubt that those in the right, such as Joe Lieberman, are working to lower the bar between church and state.
However, they should keep in mind that the Fourth Amendment gives us the right of privacy in our persons, papers, and property. Thus, the government has no right to restrict contraception, abortion, and late-term termination of pregnancy.
With regard to my post referencing Griswold Vs. Connecticut, where I point out that the USSC has defended the use of contraceptives for the American Public, sozobe states:
"Sure hope that's the case.
Griswold vs. Connecticut is certainly encouraging, in that it exists and is so clear, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be struck down at some point in the future."
It won't be struck down. The USSC usually goes with "Stare Decisis" meaning, "to abide by decided cases".
Now, there is no guarantee that some may want to modify "Griswold" but there is little chance of that in 21st Century America. The most that anti-contraceptives can do is to preach within their groups. They will do little outside of them.
However, when it comes to abortion, although the USSC will follow the principle of "Stare Decisis" with regard to Roe and Wade, it is undeniable that the split in thinking about abortion, and more specifically, the ease at which abortions can be obtained, may indeed result in modifications of the rules concerning abortion such as "parental notification" and pre-abortion Counseling"
