Coming soon to a bedroom near you...your government!

Russell Shorto writes about Contra-Contraception in the Times mag: For the past 33 years...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.

More from the article: 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...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.

Huh. What about the wife's point of view, or any other considerations a couple might have concerning their family and their personal lives? Forget that, this is just like Eve tempting Adam all over again.

Comments

[Connie Mack Jr]

A husband will sometimes begin to see his wife as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification.* Dr Joe aka Dr Phil

It appears that Dr Joe has never been to Vegas and forgot what they said should stay in Vegas?

[General Zod]

While reading the article I kept thinking about what our good friends Monty Python once said:

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!

[Joe Killian]

"A husband will sometimes begin to see his wife as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification."

I know I'm not yet married...but I don't know many married women who'd have a problem is this was actually the case. A few would drop to their knees and thank God.

Where and when is this guy living?

[Cara Michele]

Stanford says: "A husband will sometimes begin to see his wife as an object of sexual pleasure who should always be available for gratification." And he says that like it's a bad thing. But, not necessarily.

The Bible says: "Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:3-5

Stanford is arguing that fertility shouldn't be excluded from the sexual union, but the Corinthian passage speaks exclusively to the (marital) sexual union, without mention of procreation. I'm not arguing for or against contraception, but it seems to me that Scripture shows that the marriage bed is about much more than babies. (Although babies are definitely a lovely part of the picture!) And it's clear that both husband and wife are to be mutually available to give of themselves to the other.

[Ed Cone]

Thanks, Michele, for that reading.

And of course, it bears remembering that scriptural exegesis and religous practices aside, the New Testament is not the law of the land -- that would be the Constitution, which includes a First Amendment barring the establishment of religion.

[Cara Michele]

I know, and sorry, I wasn't trying to establish a theocracy, Ed. ;)

I'm just assuming (uh oh!) that if GB2 appointed Stanford and he opposes birth control, then he probably reads the Bible. So I wondered if he somehow missed that passage in Corinthians, that's all.

I promise I wasn't attempting to brainwash anybody or create faith-based policy. ;) My comment was aimed at Stanford.

[Ed Cone]

Understood, Michele -- I think your point is well worth making, and it's important to remember that being devout doesn't mean being joyless, sexless, or having 14 kids. I'm just adding the context that if unanimity of belief did exist within given religion or subset of a religion, it would not have the force of law in the land of the free.

[Cara Michele]

True, Ed. But that brings up an interesting question: Do religious folks do (or not do) things because of the rules of their faith, or because not doing them (or doing them) pleases God? Hopefully, it's the latter.

I'd rather live by the "force of love" than the "force of law." But until we all do that all the time (myself included), I'm happy that the "force of law" is there as a back-up!! ;)

[Ed Cone]

Regardless, the force of law as applied by the state is not to be dictated by a particular religious belief.

If the Bush appointee only wants to have sex for procreation, and doesn't want to use any birth control, well, fine. And he's free to tell you should do the same -- just not to force you to do so by law, just as you can read to him from Corinthians but not legislate that he live by your reading of the passage.

[Cara Michele]

We are in agreement, Mr. Cone. :)