Rev. Robert Baker's interview with Roland Lettner (KFUO Studio A) about marriage, natural law, and DOMA.
Part 1: https://sites.google.com/site/lutheransandprocreation/Home/Baker1.mp3
Part 2: https://sites.google.com/site/lutheransandprocreation/Home/Baker2.mp3
7.17.2013
7.08.2013
Infertility and the Marriage Debate
Our friend Katie Schuermann over at He Remembers the Barren answered the following question for me. Well said Katie!
Question
Submitted: At a recent theological symposium, I posited that we in the
Church need “to return to teaching properly about the positive locus of
marriage – teaching about its procreative purpose and nature.” Another
attendee replied in part that “procreation is NOT an intrinsic quality
of marriage, as we do not say the infertile are not married.” If I had
had a chance for rebuttal, I would have pointed out the error of his
logic. Bipedalism is an intrinsic quality of humans, despite the sad
reality of paraplegia. It would be very helpful to hear how you would
counter the idea that infertility invalidates the argument that
procreation is an intrinsic quality of marriage. I have my own answers
to this false argument, but I would like to make sure I have an answer
that is sensitive to the minds of those who suffer from infertility.
My pastors taught me that God institutes and defines marriage in Genesis Chapters 1 and 2. We learn in verses 1:27-28 that God created man in His own image; male and female He created them, and He blessed them. He told them to be fruitful and multiply, and God saw that “it was very good” (Gen 1:31).
The gift of procreation is not only a blessing God speaks over marriage, but God sees the blessing of children as good.
Barrenness is not good. Barrenness is a brokenness of God’s good creation. Endometriosis, PCOS, fibroids, hashimoto’s thyroiditis, low sperm motility, ovarian and cervical cancers, miscarriages, childlessness, and the groaning of all creation came about as a result of man’s fall into Sin; and we don’t use the effects of Sin to redefine that which God institutes and calls “good” in His Word, nor do we use the effects of Sin to defend the notion that procreation is somehow not a part of God’s intrinsic design of marriage. That is my biggest qualm with the other attendee’s rhetoric. His thesis does not fully confess barrenness as a post-Fall reality. Barrenness proves nothing about God’s procreative intent for marriage other than that God, post-Fall, allows the cross of barrenness to burden the shoulders of some married couples.
In regards to being sensitive to the barren, we should be careful not to turn God’s good, fruitful blessing for marriage into man’s good work. Scripture tells us that having children is not a law of God for us to keep but a heritage from Him for us to receive (Psalm 127:3). None of us would have children apart from God’s merciful blessing and giving. Only God in His wisdom knows why He does not open the wombs of the barren, and we should not burden the consciences of those who are unable to have children by suggesting they should be able to outwit the very Author of Life.
And as for using the existence of barrenness as an excuse to avoid the gift of children in marriage, I can think of no place in Scripture where God calls that good.
Is procreation an intrinsic quality of marriage?
July 8, 2013 by Katie Schuermann
Question
Submitted: At a recent theological symposium, I posited that we in the
Church need “to return to teaching properly about the positive locus of
marriage – teaching about its procreative purpose and nature.” Another
attendee replied in part that “procreation is NOT an intrinsic quality
of marriage, as we do not say the infertile are not married.” If I had
had a chance for rebuttal, I would have pointed out the error of his
logic. Bipedalism is an intrinsic quality of humans, despite the sad
reality of paraplegia. It would be very helpful to hear how you would
counter the idea that infertility invalidates the argument that
procreation is an intrinsic quality of marriage. I have my own answers
to this false argument, but I would like to make sure I have an answer
that is sensitive to the minds of those who suffer from infertility.My pastors taught me that God institutes and defines marriage in Genesis Chapters 1 and 2. We learn in verses 1:27-28 that God created man in His own image; male and female He created them, and He blessed them. He told them to be fruitful and multiply, and God saw that “it was very good” (Gen 1:31).
The gift of procreation is not only a blessing God speaks over marriage, but God sees the blessing of children as good.
Barrenness is not good. Barrenness is a brokenness of God’s good creation. Endometriosis, PCOS, fibroids, hashimoto’s thyroiditis, low sperm motility, ovarian and cervical cancers, miscarriages, childlessness, and the groaning of all creation came about as a result of man’s fall into Sin; and we don’t use the effects of Sin to redefine that which God institutes and calls “good” in His Word, nor do we use the effects of Sin to defend the notion that procreation is somehow not a part of God’s intrinsic design of marriage. That is my biggest qualm with the other attendee’s rhetoric. His thesis does not fully confess barrenness as a post-Fall reality. Barrenness proves nothing about God’s procreative intent for marriage other than that God, post-Fall, allows the cross of barrenness to burden the shoulders of some married couples.
In regards to being sensitive to the barren, we should be careful not to turn God’s good, fruitful blessing for marriage into man’s good work. Scripture tells us that having children is not a law of God for us to keep but a heritage from Him for us to receive (Psalm 127:3). None of us would have children apart from God’s merciful blessing and giving. Only God in His wisdom knows why He does not open the wombs of the barren, and we should not burden the consciences of those who are unable to have children by suggesting they should be able to outwit the very Author of Life.
And as for using the existence of barrenness as an excuse to avoid the gift of children in marriage, I can think of no place in Scripture where God calls that good.
6.26.2013
DOMA decision by Supreme Court
From our friend Greg:
The time has come, indeed, it has long since come, for Christians to ask themselves how it has come to this. It has been a long, long trail. A good place to start would be to read Justice O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence and ask yourself what she's talking about.
See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZC.html. For some help, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States#State_laws_prior_to_2003. Then, read all of the opinions in Griswold v. Connecticut. See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZO.html, the case on which Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas is based.
Ask yourself where such laws came from and how it came to be that an overwhelmingly Protestant nation enacted such laws. Then purchase or borrow from a library "Birth Control in America: The Career of Margaret Sanger" by David M. Kennedy and, if you don't have time to read the whole book, read Chapter 6, "The Debate on Morality". See: http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Control-America-Margaret-History/dp/1597404276.
You'll see the debate then was just as intense as today, though the subject matter was different, but closely related. Then read what Luther and our Protestant forebearers wrote. See: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/why-did-god-kill-onan-luther-calvin.html. Note particularly what Luther wrote in his "Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44".
Then read Matthew 7:1-5 and ask yourselves why we haven't been able to see clearly to remove this speck from the eyes of our brothers and sisters. Also ask yourself what you grandchildren and great-grandchildren will believe on today's subject based on how our beliefs have changed from what our grandparents and great-grandparents believed and practiced a century ago and for centuries before that. He who has ears, let him hear.
Yours,
Greg
The time has come, indeed, it has long since come, for Christians to ask themselves how it has come to this. It has been a long, long trail. A good place to start would be to read Justice O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence and ask yourself what she's talking about.
See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZC.html. For some help, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States#State_laws_prior_to_2003. Then, read all of the opinions in Griswold v. Connecticut. See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZO.html, the case on which Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas is based.
Ask yourself where such laws came from and how it came to be that an overwhelmingly Protestant nation enacted such laws. Then purchase or borrow from a library "Birth Control in America: The Career of Margaret Sanger" by David M. Kennedy and, if you don't have time to read the whole book, read Chapter 6, "The Debate on Morality". See: http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Control-America-Margaret-History/dp/1597404276.
You'll see the debate then was just as intense as today, though the subject matter was different, but closely related. Then read what Luther and our Protestant forebearers wrote. See: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/why-did-god-kill-onan-luther-calvin.html. Note particularly what Luther wrote in his "Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44".
Then read Matthew 7:1-5 and ask yourselves why we haven't been able to see clearly to remove this speck from the eyes of our brothers and sisters. Also ask yourself what you grandchildren and great-grandchildren will believe on today's subject based on how our beliefs have changed from what our grandparents and great-grandparents believed and practiced a century ago and for centuries before that. He who has ears, let him hear.
Yours,
Greg
6.22.2013
Lutheran Marriage Initiative
I highly recommend bookmarking and following a new blog by Rev. Robert Baker, whom you may recall from his "Bioethike" blogging adventure. This new venture is called the Lutheran Marriage Initiative.
Let me briefly explain the importance of this effort by asking a question:
Considering contemporary challenges to the Christian faith, such as so-called "homosexual marriage," what do we need to do to regain and retain a strong hold on orthodox doctrine?
I would suggest that we absolutely must revive the "loci" method of teaching.
Homosexuality is a sin, yes, and Scripture is clear on this. We do not believe, as the ELCA does, that our fathers in the faith were misinterpreting Scripture for 2000 years.
But let's rewind to just a few decades ago when the culture we live in began to see contraception as acceptable in marriage, redefining marriage as being primarily about companionship and mutual pleasure, at the expense of the procreative purpose.
What was the church's response? The Scriptures our fathers in the faith unanimously interpreted for 2000 years as condemning contraception were reinterpreted, just as the verses condemning homosexuality are now.
How did this happen? We lost the broader epistemology which was employed by the great orthodox Lutheran theologians, which includes natural law and finds its best expression in the loci method rather than a myopic look at specific Bible passages that condemn specific sins.
With regard to homosexuality, we lost the locus on marriage that teaches us, among other things, that an intrinsic quality of marriage is its procreative nature. THIS is why homosexual "marriage" is not just a sinful perversion, but in truth an impossibility! It is against the created order.
We need to return to teaching properly about the positive locus of marriage - teaching about its procreative purpose and nature. Then, the negative perversions can be seen clearly in contrast to the positive locus.
May God bless this new initiative of Rev. Baker's in so doing!
Let me briefly explain the importance of this effort by asking a question:
Considering contemporary challenges to the Christian faith, such as so-called "homosexual marriage," what do we need to do to regain and retain a strong hold on orthodox doctrine?
I would suggest that we absolutely must revive the "loci" method of teaching.
Homosexuality is a sin, yes, and Scripture is clear on this. We do not believe, as the ELCA does, that our fathers in the faith were misinterpreting Scripture for 2000 years.
But let's rewind to just a few decades ago when the culture we live in began to see contraception as acceptable in marriage, redefining marriage as being primarily about companionship and mutual pleasure, at the expense of the procreative purpose.
What was the church's response? The Scriptures our fathers in the faith unanimously interpreted for 2000 years as condemning contraception were reinterpreted, just as the verses condemning homosexuality are now.
How did this happen? We lost the broader epistemology which was employed by the great orthodox Lutheran theologians, which includes natural law and finds its best expression in the loci method rather than a myopic look at specific Bible passages that condemn specific sins.
With regard to homosexuality, we lost the locus on marriage that teaches us, among other things, that an intrinsic quality of marriage is its procreative nature. THIS is why homosexual "marriage" is not just a sinful perversion, but in truth an impossibility! It is against the created order.
We need to return to teaching properly about the positive locus of marriage - teaching about its procreative purpose and nature. Then, the negative perversions can be seen clearly in contrast to the positive locus.
May God bless this new initiative of Rev. Baker's in so doing!
6.17.2013
"Marriage" and Procreation
Due to the homosexual assault on the definition of marriage, Lutherans are starting to think more about the issue of procreation. Until very recently, conservative Lutheran arguments about homosexual
unions focused almost exclusively on the fact that the
Bible specifically prohibits homosexual acts. The simplified argument against
homosexuality (and thus homosexual "marriage") is basically limited to two premises: that "sex is for
marriage", and that marriage is defined as "one man and one woman."
However, this limited argument based on a "strong divine command theory ethic" worked against homosexuality only to a point. There is so much more involved in a full understanding of why homosexual "marriage" is not just "wrong" and "against Scripture", but rather is actually an impossibility.
In the secular world, as well as within the church, we must bring a broader epistemology into play that includes natural law and human reason. Why? Because people see the inconsistency and unfairness of saying homosexuals cannot marry when a man and a woman can marry and engage in sex that is not procreative. The real problem is that, through contraception and the sexual revolution, heterosexuals changed their definition of marriage long before homosexuals sought to co-opt the term.
A case in point is the April 24, 2009 Iowa Supreme Court case of Varnum v. Brien, which interpreted the constitutional guarantee to equal protection as follows: "To truly ensure equality before the law, the equal protection guarantee requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law alike." You see, if marriage is just about the relationship of two people, and heterosexuals can have intentionally childless marriages for the exclusive purpose of mutual support and pleasure, how can we deny the same legal designation and rights to homosexuals, "who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose of the law?"
Now that we have a growing consensus in our society for a legal redefinition of marriage that includes homosexual "marriage", people are realizing that the Christian argument against such a redefinition must go beyond the "one man - one woman" facet. Many are realizing that they were missing the larger ontological point that illustrates why marriage is between one man and one woman.
I am now noticing that many pastors, theologians, and even laymen who otherwise approve of contraception are beginning to come to the realization that understanding what marriage is must take more into account than just the "relational" aspect. They are beginning to see that a basic ontological truth about marriage is its intrinsic procreative nature. This is crucial to successfully defending marriage against the concept of "homosexual marriage." What a creature does is related to who or what it is, and who or what it is is not simply the observable properties and characteristics, but the purpose for which the creature exists and the relationship he is engaged in.
However, most people still are failing to connect these dots and take this ontological argument to its logical conclusion. Some even say that an intentionally childless marriage is still a true marriage because it retains the "appearance" of being potentially procreative. It might seem obvious to others that an intentionally childless "marriage" is not that much different from a homosexual relationship, but people really have trouble seeing the same connection to a "marriage" that is intentionally limited to the concept of a 2.1 children maximum.
Does the one-flesh union of "marriage" retain its procreative nature during the periods of time when the procreative purpose is being intentionally frustrated? Most of our readers here would agree with me that the answer is, "NO!" We do not have the prerogative to turn off the procreative nature of the one flesh union at will. Whenever we refuse God's procreative intentions for marriage, then there is little substantive difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions.
The marriage one has is the one which is being lived out at the present, not the one a person might choose to have at another time. I can't say I'm being faithful to God's purpose for marriage by saying I plan to be fruitful later. That would be like saying that I am loving my neighbor if I leave him starving today but plan to give him a loaf of bread next week.
Marriages that struggle with infertility, as well as post-menopausal marriages, also do not validate the false notion that an ***intentionally*** childless marriage (or period of marriage) is still true marriage simply because it retains the "appearance" of a procreative relationship. Again, ontologically speaking, what a creature does is related to who or what it is, and who or what it is is not simply the observable properties and characteristics, but the purpose for which the creature exists and the relationship he is engaged in.
So, my question is this... how do we address the error we see in those who would use the procreative argument against homosexual "marriage" yet approve of family planning within heterosexual marriage? How do we get them to see that contraception itself is a sodomitic sin, corrupting the very nature of the one-flesh union we call marriage? What is the simplest way to point out the logical inconsistency? What questions could one ask such individuals to get them to think? What analogies would open their minds to the truth? How do we address the false counterarguments regarding infertility and post-menopausal marriage?
I am attending the Concordia Catechetical Academy Symposium this Wednesday through Friday, and I expect the argument is going to be ripe for the picking. The subject is "Catechesis and Contemporary Challenges to the Christian Faith." Rev. Dr. Nathan Jastram is one of the presenters and is going to be addressing the issue of homosexuality. I've also been thinking about this Symposium's topic in relation to the recent book I reviewed here on L&P, How the West Really Lost God by Mary Eberstadt.
Overall, I personally believe contraception has been one of the most detrimental challenges to the Christian faith. I really think we are approaching a time when, due to the contemporary challenges, people who otherwise hold orthodox theology will just need to connect the dots of what they have already come to realize in order to reclaim the historic biblical teaching of the church about procreation.
However, this limited argument based on a "strong divine command theory ethic" worked against homosexuality only to a point. There is so much more involved in a full understanding of why homosexual "marriage" is not just "wrong" and "against Scripture", but rather is actually an impossibility.
In the secular world, as well as within the church, we must bring a broader epistemology into play that includes natural law and human reason. Why? Because people see the inconsistency and unfairness of saying homosexuals cannot marry when a man and a woman can marry and engage in sex that is not procreative. The real problem is that, through contraception and the sexual revolution, heterosexuals changed their definition of marriage long before homosexuals sought to co-opt the term.
A case in point is the April 24, 2009 Iowa Supreme Court case of Varnum v. Brien, which interpreted the constitutional guarantee to equal protection as follows: "To truly ensure equality before the law, the equal protection guarantee requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law alike." You see, if marriage is just about the relationship of two people, and heterosexuals can have intentionally childless marriages for the exclusive purpose of mutual support and pleasure, how can we deny the same legal designation and rights to homosexuals, "who are similarly situated with respect to the purpose of the law?"
Now that we have a growing consensus in our society for a legal redefinition of marriage that includes homosexual "marriage", people are realizing that the Christian argument against such a redefinition must go beyond the "one man - one woman" facet. Many are realizing that they were missing the larger ontological point that illustrates why marriage is between one man and one woman.
I am now noticing that many pastors, theologians, and even laymen who otherwise approve of contraception are beginning to come to the realization that understanding what marriage is must take more into account than just the "relational" aspect. They are beginning to see that a basic ontological truth about marriage is its intrinsic procreative nature. This is crucial to successfully defending marriage against the concept of "homosexual marriage." What a creature does is related to who or what it is, and who or what it is is not simply the observable properties and characteristics, but the purpose for which the creature exists and the relationship he is engaged in.
However, most people still are failing to connect these dots and take this ontological argument to its logical conclusion. Some even say that an intentionally childless marriage is still a true marriage because it retains the "appearance" of being potentially procreative. It might seem obvious to others that an intentionally childless "marriage" is not that much different from a homosexual relationship, but people really have trouble seeing the same connection to a "marriage" that is intentionally limited to the concept of a 2.1 children maximum.
Does the one-flesh union of "marriage" retain its procreative nature during the periods of time when the procreative purpose is being intentionally frustrated? Most of our readers here would agree with me that the answer is, "NO!" We do not have the prerogative to turn off the procreative nature of the one flesh union at will. Whenever we refuse God's procreative intentions for marriage, then there is little substantive difference between heterosexual and homosexual unions.
The marriage one has is the one which is being lived out at the present, not the one a person might choose to have at another time. I can't say I'm being faithful to God's purpose for marriage by saying I plan to be fruitful later. That would be like saying that I am loving my neighbor if I leave him starving today but plan to give him a loaf of bread next week.
Marriages that struggle with infertility, as well as post-menopausal marriages, also do not validate the false notion that an ***intentionally*** childless marriage (or period of marriage) is still true marriage simply because it retains the "appearance" of a procreative relationship. Again, ontologically speaking, what a creature does is related to who or what it is, and who or what it is is not simply the observable properties and characteristics, but the purpose for which the creature exists and the relationship he is engaged in.
So, my question is this... how do we address the error we see in those who would use the procreative argument against homosexual "marriage" yet approve of family planning within heterosexual marriage? How do we get them to see that contraception itself is a sodomitic sin, corrupting the very nature of the one-flesh union we call marriage? What is the simplest way to point out the logical inconsistency? What questions could one ask such individuals to get them to think? What analogies would open their minds to the truth? How do we address the false counterarguments regarding infertility and post-menopausal marriage?
I am attending the Concordia Catechetical Academy Symposium this Wednesday through Friday, and I expect the argument is going to be ripe for the picking. The subject is "Catechesis and Contemporary Challenges to the Christian Faith." Rev. Dr. Nathan Jastram is one of the presenters and is going to be addressing the issue of homosexuality. I've also been thinking about this Symposium's topic in relation to the recent book I reviewed here on L&P, How the West Really Lost God by Mary Eberstadt.
Overall, I personally believe contraception has been one of the most detrimental challenges to the Christian faith. I really think we are approaching a time when, due to the contemporary challenges, people who otherwise hold orthodox theology will just need to connect the dots of what they have already come to realize in order to reclaim the historic biblical teaching of the church about procreation.
6.07.2013
How the West Really Lost God:
A New Theory of Secularization by Mary Eberstadt
Eberstadt's basic argument is that religious decline doesn't just lead to family decline, but rather in some ways also causes it. While I realize this is not primarily a theological treatise, it does address religious issues and therefore has an underlying theological premise of sorts. In that regard, I must say that some of the argumentation raises theological red flags in suggesting that "at least some of the time family drives faith" [page 103].
Of course, as Lutherans we understand that what drives faith is Word and Sacrament, not whether one procreates or experiences "family" in a positive sense. However, I can still agree with the main direction of the underlying theological argument. The primary effective point here is not that having kids makes one have faith, but rather that NOT having kids can tend to lead to a loss of faith.
THAT is something I can agree with. Why? "We also reject and condemn the dogma that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost are not lost by willful sin, but that the saints and elect retain the Holy Ghost even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist therein." [FC Ep Good Works ¶19]
Augustine, Luther, and countless others warn us that contraceptive sex is "worse than adultery". Among other differences, adultery can be a sin that one stumbles into in a moment of passion. Successfully separating sex from procreation, on the other hand, requires constant planning and persistence.
There's a big difference between the sins we stumble into and the sins we live in. One doesn't stumble into successful birth control practices. One must work at it quite diligently - "living in it" - and this includes NFP. And, as the Epitome makes clear, faith and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost are lost by such willful, persistent sin.
So, the theory that contraception has contributed to a loss of faith is quite consistent with good theology. Let me quote the author making the point of her thesis question on page 113:
"...why is it not more fitting with the facts to suppose that the dramatic collapse of fertility, used again as just one proxy for the state of the family (because it is the easiest to measure), has been helping to drive the collapse in religiosity, rather than just vise versa? That not having babies any more made people less likely to bother about - or hear, depending on your point of view - God?"
Indeed, it makes a great deal of sense. Unfortunately, Eberstadt also believes this can work in the opposite direction (toward creating faith). This may make logical sense when it comes to human reason. However, I would contend that this theory is contrary to a monergistic Lutheran understanding of conversion.
One of the primary reasons she gives as to why it would be reasonable to believe family can help bring about faith is that the analogies, symbols, and images children and family provide are important adjuncts to the Word, helping the simple-minded to understand, for instance, the love of a heavenly Father. Instead, I think it is more proper to see the love of God as a principle analogy by which people come to properly understand marriage and family - in fact, the only way one can properly understand marriage and family. Without having received the gift of faith through the Word, one cannot understand the love that only faith can see. The fact is, the gift of faith comes without "understanding" in the cognitive sense that I think she is postulating here.
Faith is given in the simple words: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Does a baby “understand” or “comprehend” these words? Is it a valid baptism if the infant does not yet speak the language the words are being spoken in? Is it a valid baptism if it is done by a Roman Catholic priest in Latin? You know the answers to these questions. The Word, in and with the water, does great things. It does seemingly impossible things. The child does not need a picture book or analogy in order to receive faith from the Word in baptism. Neither do the simple-minded who may not have intact loving families need things outside of the Word.
My point is that we may say that the symbol of the family can and does serve the Word by helping to explain the Word, aiding in ongoing catechesis, but we cannot look at it as creating or sustaining faith. That job is something we reserve as belonging to the Word and Sacraments exclusively. Christianity initially spread through the conversion of people living in the Roman Empire at a time when it could be argued that the family had disintegrated worse than it has yet in the Western world today. So, I would argue that the decline of the family does not limit the power of the Holy Spirit to create faith when and where He wills to grow the church even in the face of this modern secularization of Western Civilization.
That said, there is yet another way to frame the arguments of this book in such a way that they do not do violence to proper theology. Eberstadt defines and explains religious decline, secularization, and even "Christianity" much more broadly than a Lutheran theological discussion allows one to. In what I wrote above I have not acknowledged the broader license Eberstadt claims as a sociologist in discussing this. However, I do think my theological arguments are important, as Eberstadt does not approach this without making theological arguments of her own, which is precisely what I have taken issue with above. Having made my theological point, I will now admit the broader, nontheological, sociological truth of Eberstadt's thesis.
It does appear plausible that having children and intact families lends itself well to people thinking more "religiously." In this regard we can even acknowledge the connection between religion and fertility among non-Christians (e.g. Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, etc.). Even within our own churches it appears that when people begin to have children, they tend to come to church more. However, we must admit that there are plenty of hypocrites in every church and, indeed, in every religion. The sociological point here is not a theological one of whether the "religious" are actually "true believers". It is simply an observable fact that people of many faiths tend to pay more attention to their given religiosity if they have an intact family. Having children itself is a transcendent, or even "religious" experience.
There are many other aspects to Eberstadt's sociological arguments that are worth considering. The broader point that a society that values a "Christian" identity of sorts in regard to its laws, its institutions, its culture, etc., tends to be a society that benefits all its members, including those who do not believe. This is the broader negative effect of "secularlization" with which Eberstadt is primarily concerned in this book. The West has "lost God" and Eberstadt make a strong case that family decline may, in fact, be contributing to the ongoing secularization of our society rather than family decline simply being a result of secularization.
Having highlighted the theological issues I wrestled with in reading this book can thus be recognized ahead of time, such that if and when you read this book you can do so without the distraction these theological considerations tended to cause me. It is worth the read, though even she admits it is speculative exercise and not a book that seeks to provide definitive answers. Her goal was to offer a unique perspective on secularization that may help explain some of the unanswered questions found in other perspectives. I think she does that well.
Eberstadt's basic argument is that religious decline doesn't just lead to family decline, but rather in some ways also causes it. While I realize this is not primarily a theological treatise, it does address religious issues and therefore has an underlying theological premise of sorts. In that regard, I must say that some of the argumentation raises theological red flags in suggesting that "at least some of the time family drives faith" [page 103].
Of course, as Lutherans we understand that what drives faith is Word and Sacrament, not whether one procreates or experiences "family" in a positive sense. However, I can still agree with the main direction of the underlying theological argument. The primary effective point here is not that having kids makes one have faith, but rather that NOT having kids can tend to lead to a loss of faith.
THAT is something I can agree with. Why? "We also reject and condemn the dogma that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost are not lost by willful sin, but that the saints and elect retain the Holy Ghost even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist therein." [FC Ep Good Works ¶19]
Augustine, Luther, and countless others warn us that contraceptive sex is "worse than adultery". Among other differences, adultery can be a sin that one stumbles into in a moment of passion. Successfully separating sex from procreation, on the other hand, requires constant planning and persistence.
There's a big difference between the sins we stumble into and the sins we live in. One doesn't stumble into successful birth control practices. One must work at it quite diligently - "living in it" - and this includes NFP. And, as the Epitome makes clear, faith and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost are lost by such willful, persistent sin.
So, the theory that contraception has contributed to a loss of faith is quite consistent with good theology. Let me quote the author making the point of her thesis question on page 113:
"...why is it not more fitting with the facts to suppose that the dramatic collapse of fertility, used again as just one proxy for the state of the family (because it is the easiest to measure), has been helping to drive the collapse in religiosity, rather than just vise versa? That not having babies any more made people less likely to bother about - or hear, depending on your point of view - God?"
Indeed, it makes a great deal of sense. Unfortunately, Eberstadt also believes this can work in the opposite direction (toward creating faith). This may make logical sense when it comes to human reason. However, I would contend that this theory is contrary to a monergistic Lutheran understanding of conversion.
One of the primary reasons she gives as to why it would be reasonable to believe family can help bring about faith is that the analogies, symbols, and images children and family provide are important adjuncts to the Word, helping the simple-minded to understand, for instance, the love of a heavenly Father. Instead, I think it is more proper to see the love of God as a principle analogy by which people come to properly understand marriage and family - in fact, the only way one can properly understand marriage and family. Without having received the gift of faith through the Word, one cannot understand the love that only faith can see. The fact is, the gift of faith comes without "understanding" in the cognitive sense that I think she is postulating here.
Faith is given in the simple words: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Does a baby “understand” or “comprehend” these words? Is it a valid baptism if the infant does not yet speak the language the words are being spoken in? Is it a valid baptism if it is done by a Roman Catholic priest in Latin? You know the answers to these questions. The Word, in and with the water, does great things. It does seemingly impossible things. The child does not need a picture book or analogy in order to receive faith from the Word in baptism. Neither do the simple-minded who may not have intact loving families need things outside of the Word.
My point is that we may say that the symbol of the family can and does serve the Word by helping to explain the Word, aiding in ongoing catechesis, but we cannot look at it as creating or sustaining faith. That job is something we reserve as belonging to the Word and Sacraments exclusively. Christianity initially spread through the conversion of people living in the Roman Empire at a time when it could be argued that the family had disintegrated worse than it has yet in the Western world today. So, I would argue that the decline of the family does not limit the power of the Holy Spirit to create faith when and where He wills to grow the church even in the face of this modern secularization of Western Civilization.
That said, there is yet another way to frame the arguments of this book in such a way that they do not do violence to proper theology. Eberstadt defines and explains religious decline, secularization, and even "Christianity" much more broadly than a Lutheran theological discussion allows one to. In what I wrote above I have not acknowledged the broader license Eberstadt claims as a sociologist in discussing this. However, I do think my theological arguments are important, as Eberstadt does not approach this without making theological arguments of her own, which is precisely what I have taken issue with above. Having made my theological point, I will now admit the broader, nontheological, sociological truth of Eberstadt's thesis.
It does appear plausible that having children and intact families lends itself well to people thinking more "religiously." In this regard we can even acknowledge the connection between religion and fertility among non-Christians (e.g. Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, etc.). Even within our own churches it appears that when people begin to have children, they tend to come to church more. However, we must admit that there are plenty of hypocrites in every church and, indeed, in every religion. The sociological point here is not a theological one of whether the "religious" are actually "true believers". It is simply an observable fact that people of many faiths tend to pay more attention to their given religiosity if they have an intact family. Having children itself is a transcendent, or even "religious" experience.
There are many other aspects to Eberstadt's sociological arguments that are worth considering. The broader point that a society that values a "Christian" identity of sorts in regard to its laws, its institutions, its culture, etc., tends to be a society that benefits all its members, including those who do not believe. This is the broader negative effect of "secularlization" with which Eberstadt is primarily concerned in this book. The West has "lost God" and Eberstadt make a strong case that family decline may, in fact, be contributing to the ongoing secularization of our society rather than family decline simply being a result of secularization.
Having highlighted the theological issues I wrestled with in reading this book can thus be recognized ahead of time, such that if and when you read this book you can do so without the distraction these theological considerations tended to cause me. It is worth the read, though even she admits it is speculative exercise and not a book that seeks to provide definitive answers. Her goal was to offer a unique perspective on secularization that may help explain some of the unanswered questions found in other perspectives. I think she does that well.
6.02.2013
5.31.2013
4.15.2013
4.02.2013
The Abolition of Man
"The preservation of society, and of the species itself, are ends that do not hang on the precarious thread of Reason: they are given by Instinct. That is why there is no need to argue against the man who does not acknowledge them. We have an instinctive urge to preserve our own species. That is why men ought to work for posterity. We have no instinctive urge to keep promises or to respect individual life: that is why scruples of justice and humanity—in fact the Tao—can be properly swept away when they conflict with our real end, the preservation of the species. That, again, is why the modern situation permits and demands a new sexual morality: the old taboos served some real purpose in helping to preserve the species, but contraceptives have modified this and we can now abandon many of the taboos. For of course sexual desire, being instinctive, is to be gratified whenever it does not conflict with the preservation of the species. It looks, in fact, as if an ethics based on instinct will give the Innovator all he wants and nothing that he does not want."
C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
3.22.2013
Dr. Bessie
From
Alan Graebner, Birth Control and the Lutherans—The Missouri Synod as a Case Study, Journal of Social History, Vol. 2, No. 4, Summer 1969, pages
320-22:
In an attempt to learn more about this "remarkable woman," today I read Dr. Bessie, the 168 page biography about Dr. Alfred M. Rehwinkel's wife coauthored by the husband and wife team.
The first 92 pages of the book paint a picture of a rather progressive woman doctor who has plenty of experience that would make one sympathetic to the notion that birth control could be a blessing - at least for some. I was surprised and pleased, however, to see this perspective tempered somewhat in the second half of the book.
The changing culture of the Twentieth Century, perhaps like others, seems punctuated by the tension between the beliefs, traditions, and sentiments of the past and the perceived challenges of the modern age. These same tensions are clearly evident in each of these two Rehwinkel books, Dr. Bessie and Planned Parenthood.
There is a certain level of respect, though brief, given to the traditional values and beliefs of the past by these authors. However, the overall works both form more of an apology for the progressive agenda. Any defense of the right perspective gets only a few sentences and is outweighed by the overall force of the balance of their writings.
In the beginning of the book, we learn of an ambitious young daughter of a physician. She is engaged to a banker's son. However, the advice of a "motherly friend and neighbor" named "Mrs. Bensen" dissuades her from this prospect: "Bessie, why don't you go to college and study medicine?" Bessie writes:
She approaches her father, who tries to change her mind, but Bessie's ambitions win out and the father gives in with the words: "Very well, you're old enough to know what you want to do."
The next two chapters are all about her difficulties in school and as a new young woman doctor. At the end of chapter III, she relates the difficulties of delivering babies in those days, but at the same time explaining that "it seems that women were hardier that they are now. The laws of nature are designed for the survival of the race. After all, the Creator had ordained for man to increase and multiply long before there were any doctors, nurses, or hospitals." There's one of those points of tension in the book I was talking about.
Next we learn about a few tragedies that strike Bessie's life. Her brother's wife develops an infection after the birth of her fifth child and dies. However, before her death she prays in Bessie's presence: "O Lord, I know that Bessie will not let my children come to want. Help her and bless her for what she will do for them."
Only a few months later Bessie's brother dies, leaving the children orphaned. So what does Bessie do? She finds a woman willing to take care of the baby and another sister takes the other boy. She finds another woman to take care of the youngest of three girls (2 years old), paying her for room and board. And the older two girls she puts in "a Home" (orphanage?).
Then, only a few months after her brother dies, Bessie's latest fiance (who she hasn't mentioned yet up to this point) dies. To get away from all the tragedy she moves to another town. Her conscience then gets the best of her and she returns to rescue the two oldest girls from the orphanage, bringing them home to live with her. Bessie writes:
Then, as a result of the banking crisis and economic problems of 1907, Bessie suffers financial ruin. But, before relating the events that followed this she interrupts an otherwise chronological story to relate some of the "unpleasant experiences" she had in the early days of her practice. And, again, she returns to the subject of procreation. As a general doctor, her stories seem to overemphasize some of the most negative obstetrical scenarios one could think of. It is easy to see how these experiences made a very deep impression on Bessie that was obviously part of the thinking she and her husband had about birth control. Here is the thrust of the first story:
The next story is about abortion. A young woman who is engaged gets pregnant, but her fiance dies and then she wants an abortion. While she counsels this young woman in a prolife manner, Bessie follows this story up with the following words:
It is clear that the Rehwinkels would never have approved of abortion. However, as usual, hard cases make bad law. You can see how any practical discussions Bessie and Alfred had about birth control would have favored the likes of Margaret Sanger and the acceptance of birth control. This book about Bessie is completely consistent with Alfred's book Planned Parenthood.
So, back to the life of Bessie, she moves out west to Wyoming. Here we learn again about some of the more deplorable conditions in which women give birth and in which doctors must deliver babies. Yet, after a long chapter detailing a laundry list of negatives, Bessie writes perhaps the most unexpected words I found in this entire book:
Bessie, a Methodist, ends up meeting a young Lutheran vicar, whom she marries, leaving her medical practice behind and moving to Canada, having three children of her own, and ending up in St. Louis. There's a lot of good story-telling in there, but I guess I'll leave that for those of you who want to read the book for yourself. The important point for the sake of the subject this QF group is most concerned with is explained in Bessie's own words, summing up this latter portion of her life as follows:
That's not the "moral of the story" I expected to hear from Bessie and Alfred Rehwinkel, but I like it!
However, while these early feminists like Bessie Rehwinkel often still saw motherhood as the "crowning achievement" of a woman's life, it was more like the frosting on a cake that would be "humdrum with nothing else to look forward to" without the "cake" of all the other achievements a woman should enjoy before ever getting married, and continue doing after the banner of motherhood has been won with one, two, or at most three, children. Then she can stand proud in any group of women, silently despising all the lesser women who "never went to college."
No, motherhood is not the frosting on the cake. It is the cake! - a cake that is so sweet and delicious it needs no frosting. Unfortunately, this leaves it less appealing to the eye. It also is known to bring pain and anguish. All the other achievements in a woman's life are like all the other dainty and tempting deserts at the table that can be sampled at a party. There's nothing necessarily wrong with these other deserts, per se, especially if the cake is not available at this or that time.
However, after sampling these other deserts, a woman often does not have the appetite or the ability to recognize or fully enjoy what is actually the best cake on the table, or else she is already so full that she only takes a few bites before she can eat no more. Sometimes the party is over before she has a chance to try it. Many enjoy the other fine deserts so much that they refuse to consider that ugly looking cake that doesn't have any frosting, even going so far as spitting it in the trash if they unexpectedly find it in their mouths.
"In this case he [Rehwinkel] was much aided by his wife, a remarkable woman trained as a physician who was practicing medicine and homesteading in Wyoming when she met Rehwinkel. She had grown up Methodist; thus, “when you told her something was wrong, she wanted to know why, and you couldn't just quote Walther [the Synod's patriarch] to her.” Impatience with ultraconservative standards of woman's role, inquiring skepticism and professional medical competence were highly corrosive; by the early 1940's Alfred Rehwinkel was exploring a new position before groups of pastors and occasionally laymen (Alfred M. Rehwinkel, Dr. Bessie, CPH, 1963; interview, Alfred Rehwinkel, June 21, 1967. For a report of one appearance before laymen, see Lutheran Layman, XVIII, 1947, 25). In such sessions, Rehwinkel provided a sympathetic history of family restriction, explicitly defending the much maligned Margaret Sanger. To dispel intimations that contraception was murder, he explained the mechanics of conception and tried to vitiate the simplistic equating of race suicide and birth control."
 | ||
| ©1963, CPH |
The first 92 pages of the book paint a picture of a rather progressive woman doctor who has plenty of experience that would make one sympathetic to the notion that birth control could be a blessing - at least for some. I was surprised and pleased, however, to see this perspective tempered somewhat in the second half of the book.
The changing culture of the Twentieth Century, perhaps like others, seems punctuated by the tension between the beliefs, traditions, and sentiments of the past and the perceived challenges of the modern age. These same tensions are clearly evident in each of these two Rehwinkel books, Dr. Bessie and Planned Parenthood.
There is a certain level of respect, though brief, given to the traditional values and beliefs of the past by these authors. However, the overall works both form more of an apology for the progressive agenda. Any defense of the right perspective gets only a few sentences and is outweighed by the overall force of the balance of their writings.
In the beginning of the book, we learn of an ambitious young daughter of a physician. She is engaged to a banker's son. However, the advice of a "motherly friend and neighbor" named "Mrs. Bensen" dissuades her from this prospect: "Bessie, why don't you go to college and study medicine?" Bessie writes:
"I had thought about it so much, but never had the courage to discuss it with anyone else, not even with my father. ...For a moment my spirits dropped again, fearing that he might not agree. How terrible that would be! All my hopes and dreams would again be shattered. It would mean that I would get married like other girls and settle down to the humdrum life of a married woman in a small town. There would be nothing else to look forward to."
She approaches her father, who tries to change her mind, but Bessie's ambitions win out and the father gives in with the words: "Very well, you're old enough to know what you want to do."
The next two chapters are all about her difficulties in school and as a new young woman doctor. At the end of chapter III, she relates the difficulties of delivering babies in those days, but at the same time explaining that "it seems that women were hardier that they are now. The laws of nature are designed for the survival of the race. After all, the Creator had ordained for man to increase and multiply long before there were any doctors, nurses, or hospitals." There's one of those points of tension in the book I was talking about.
Next we learn about a few tragedies that strike Bessie's life. Her brother's wife develops an infection after the birth of her fifth child and dies. However, before her death she prays in Bessie's presence: "O Lord, I know that Bessie will not let my children come to want. Help her and bless her for what she will do for them."
Only a few months later Bessie's brother dies, leaving the children orphaned. So what does Bessie do? She finds a woman willing to take care of the baby and another sister takes the other boy. She finds another woman to take care of the youngest of three girls (2 years old), paying her for room and board. And the older two girls she puts in "a Home" (orphanage?).
Then, only a few months after her brother dies, Bessie's latest fiance (who she hasn't mentioned yet up to this point) dies. To get away from all the tragedy she moves to another town. Her conscience then gets the best of her and she returns to rescue the two oldest girls from the orphanage, bringing them home to live with her. Bessie writes:
"When my relatives found out what I had done, they were not at all encouraging but rather criticized me as having acted impulsively and undertaken a foolhardy venture. Even my father warned that I was taking on something far beyond my ability. He spoke from experience, because in his second marriage he had married a widow with several children, and he knew what it meant to assume such a responsibility."
Then, as a result of the banking crisis and economic problems of 1907, Bessie suffers financial ruin. But, before relating the events that followed this she interrupts an otherwise chronological story to relate some of the "unpleasant experiences" she had in the early days of her practice. And, again, she returns to the subject of procreation. As a general doctor, her stories seem to overemphasize some of the most negative obstetrical scenarios one could think of. It is easy to see how these experiences made a very deep impression on Bessie that was obviously part of the thinking she and her husband had about birth control. Here is the thrust of the first story:
"The unfaithful husband and father of the 12 children had contracted gonorrhea from some prostitute in the city while his wife was in the last stages of pregnancy or in the early days after her confinement, and then, before she was able to leave her bed, he had infected her with this dread disease."
The next story is about abortion. A young woman who is engaged gets pregnant, but her fiance dies and then she wants an abortion. While she counsels this young woman in a prolife manner, Bessie follows this story up with the following words:
"Cases like this demonstrated to me again and again the unfairness of society in dealing with moral delinquents. The man, equally guilty, in most cases no doubt more so, remains anonymous. He goes free and may continue to wreck other girls, but the girl must bear the consequences alone and is branded for life."
It is clear that the Rehwinkels would never have approved of abortion. However, as usual, hard cases make bad law. You can see how any practical discussions Bessie and Alfred had about birth control would have favored the likes of Margaret Sanger and the acceptance of birth control. This book about Bessie is completely consistent with Alfred's book Planned Parenthood.
So, back to the life of Bessie, she moves out west to Wyoming. Here we learn again about some of the more deplorable conditions in which women give birth and in which doctors must deliver babies. Yet, after a long chapter detailing a laundry list of negatives, Bessie writes perhaps the most unexpected words I found in this entire book:
"But I survived, and so did my patients despite all these hardships and disadvantages. All of which proves again that man by nature is a pretty tough creature. Man was intended to survive and multiply even under the most unfavorable conditions.
"The fact is that even today the greatest number of human beings are born into the world under circumstances far more primitive than we had on the Western frontier in those days. The greatest increase in population still occurs in countries where they know nothing of modern hospitals, sanitation, or even doctors.
"Only we of the Western world have all these luxuries and conveniences, and we are growing soft, lazy, and fat.
"It will remain for history to determine whether the soft and pampered materialistic generation of our age will be able to preserve the wonderful heritage that has been passed on to them by their more rugged and less favored forefathers."
Bessie, a Methodist, ends up meeting a young Lutheran vicar, whom she marries, leaving her medical practice behind and moving to Canada, having three children of her own, and ending up in St. Louis. There's a lot of good story-telling in there, but I guess I'll leave that for those of you who want to read the book for yourself. The important point for the sake of the subject this QF group is most concerned with is explained in Bessie's own words, summing up this latter portion of her life as follows:
"I discovered that there are greater things in the life of a woman than a professional success. A woman may succeed in a man's profession and enjoy the independence of a career, but she remains a woman still. And I learned that to be the wife of a good man and devoted husband and a mother of loving children is infinitely greater than the success in a profession... There is nothing greater in the life of a woman than motherhood."
That's not the "moral of the story" I expected to hear from Bessie and Alfred Rehwinkel, but I like it!
However, while these early feminists like Bessie Rehwinkel often still saw motherhood as the "crowning achievement" of a woman's life, it was more like the frosting on a cake that would be "humdrum with nothing else to look forward to" without the "cake" of all the other achievements a woman should enjoy before ever getting married, and continue doing after the banner of motherhood has been won with one, two, or at most three, children. Then she can stand proud in any group of women, silently despising all the lesser women who "never went to college."
No, motherhood is not the frosting on the cake. It is the cake! - a cake that is so sweet and delicious it needs no frosting. Unfortunately, this leaves it less appealing to the eye. It also is known to bring pain and anguish. All the other achievements in a woman's life are like all the other dainty and tempting deserts at the table that can be sampled at a party. There's nothing necessarily wrong with these other deserts, per se, especially if the cake is not available at this or that time.
However, after sampling these other deserts, a woman often does not have the appetite or the ability to recognize or fully enjoy what is actually the best cake on the table, or else she is already so full that she only takes a few bites before she can eat no more. Sometimes the party is over before she has a chance to try it. Many enjoy the other fine deserts so much that they refuse to consider that ugly looking cake that doesn't have any frosting, even going so far as spitting it in the trash if they unexpectedly find it in their mouths.
2.05.2013
2.02.2013
1.22.2013
The Legalization of Abortion
It all began in 1930 at the Anglican Lambeth Conference:
However, it only took a matter of a few short decades for the continuing social and political forces to cause all of Christendom to capitulate. In 1959, the unofficial change in teaching in the LCMS was marked by the publication by CPH of Alfred M. Rehwinkel's book Planned Parenthood, praising Margaret Sanger. The "hard case" arguments were very much a part of this.
Even the Roman Catholic Church finally gave in to the primary argument of the Lambeth decision of 1930. Paul VI's Humanae Vitae accepted the false dichotomy of the "hard case exception", but nuanced the RC solution by forbidding "artificial" means while officially allowing the most effective "natural" means of family planning, NFP.
The problems with the Lambeth decision are many, but one proved particularly insidious. That is, if contraception is okay in some hard case scenarios, then who gets to decide when it is okay to contracept? Where is the line and who is the one drawing it? How are couples to be counseled? Here is where the rubber hit the road. Children became a choice and people needed a framework to make that choice in.
A supposed "right to privacy" came to the rescue. This "right to privacy" is the very argument that was used to abolish the Comstock laws, legalizing birth control. Ultimately, everyone became subject to his own devices.
The belief that having children is a choice, and that people have a right to privacy, then led quickly and inevitably to the legalization of abortion. This entire series of change took only 43 years from the Lambeth decision until the legalization of abortion in 1973.
Resolution 15Sociological forces around the time of WWI led to this Lambeth Conference decision of 1930, approving the use of birth control in hard cases. This is acknowledged by everyone as the decision which reversed the unanimous testimony of the previous two millennia that Scripture strictly prohibits ALL intentionally contraceptive sex. All other churches, including Missouri Synod Lutherans, attacked the Lambeth decision as flatly contrary to Scripture and the unanimous teaching of the church.
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
Voting: For 193; Against 67.
However, it only took a matter of a few short decades for the continuing social and political forces to cause all of Christendom to capitulate. In 1959, the unofficial change in teaching in the LCMS was marked by the publication by CPH of Alfred M. Rehwinkel's book Planned Parenthood, praising Margaret Sanger. The "hard case" arguments were very much a part of this.
Even the Roman Catholic Church finally gave in to the primary argument of the Lambeth decision of 1930. Paul VI's Humanae Vitae accepted the false dichotomy of the "hard case exception", but nuanced the RC solution by forbidding "artificial" means while officially allowing the most effective "natural" means of family planning, NFP.
The problems with the Lambeth decision are many, but one proved particularly insidious. That is, if contraception is okay in some hard case scenarios, then who gets to decide when it is okay to contracept? Where is the line and who is the one drawing it? How are couples to be counseled? Here is where the rubber hit the road. Children became a choice and people needed a framework to make that choice in.
A supposed "right to privacy" came to the rescue. This "right to privacy" is the very argument that was used to abolish the Comstock laws, legalizing birth control. Ultimately, everyone became subject to his own devices.
The belief that having children is a choice, and that people have a right to privacy, then led quickly and inevitably to the legalization of abortion. This entire series of change took only 43 years from the Lambeth decision until the legalization of abortion in 1973.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
