Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Modern reproductive follies

"During the sexual revolution of the 1960s," says James Neuchterlein, "people wanted to have sex without children, but in 2010 we find ourselves trying to have children without sex ..."

A strange paradox brought to you by the people who think (equally paradoxically) that reproductive organs are not for reproduction.

9 comments:

Singring said...

I guess Mr. Neuchterlein hasn't looked out his window the past 40 years. People are still trying to have sex without getting children (it's called contraceptives, he might want to look that one up on one of these new-fangled things called 'computers') and always have done so (in its earliest incarnation, contraception amounted to killing unwanted children).

Half a minute on a computer would have told Mr. Neuchterlein that contraception has been practiced since Biblical times:

'Birth control and infanticide are well documented in Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. One of the earliest documents explicitly referring to birth control methods is the Kuhn gynaecological papyrus from about 1850 BC. It describes various contraceptive pessaries, including acacia gum, which recent research has confirmed to have spermatocidal qualities and is still used in contraceptive jellies. Other birth control methods mentioned in the papyrus include the application of gummy substances to cover the "mouth of the womb", a mixture of honey and sodium carbonate applied to the inside of the vagina, and a pessary made from crocodile dung. Lactation of up to three years was also used for birth control purposes in ancient Egypt.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control#History

Moreover, people have throughout history tried to have children without having sex (its called adoption - something else he might want to look up).

Of course, Martin proudly cites such an eminent scholar, happy to decorate his blog with another example of a Christian who is so oblivious to human history his statement is simply comical.

Singring said...

By the way, there's a typo in the name, its Nuechterlein. Consider this a correction to the above post.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

As the adoptive father of my two children, I find that post rather offensive. My family is just as real as anyone elses, and you can take your opinion that its strange and stick it you know where.

Anonymous said...

Well I dont think this applies to adoption. I highly doubt that Martin is implying that having children without sex is referring to adoption. Especially considering how conservative Martin is one could assume he is rather supportive of it. Also lol even in Adoption someone had to have sex and make the decision to birth the Child. I think he is referring to artificial insemination and other artificial reproductive techniques. I wouldn't be so offended.

Anonymous said...

Here is a comical video which may be exaggerating the point but definitely gives you an idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQB2-Kmiic

Also singring, I find you post on almost ever single post of Cothran. Do you sit around all day trying to argue and debate for the sake of arguing? If so you must have a real special place in your heart for Cothran.

Singring said...

'Also lol even in Adoption someone had to have sex and make the decision to birth the Child. I think he is referring to artificial insemination and other artificial reproductive techniques.'

In artificial insemination someone also had to make the decision to donate semen and carry the child.

'Also singring, I find you post on almost ever single post of Cothran. Do you sit around all day trying to argue and debate for the sake of arguing? If so you must have a real special place in your heart for Cothran.'

I post on those posts that I find worth commenting on - if that bothers you, I'm sorry to ear it. I am certainly not arguing for the sake of arguing - for example I commended Martin on his post about judicial elections. When I believe he gets things right, I say so. When I don't care, I don't post (for example, I couldn't care less about Kentucky gambling laws). When, however, he posts a statement as this one, I consider it prudent to point out why I object. I assume you feel the same way when you object to my posts.

I wouldn't say I have a 'special place' for Martin, but I will tell you that this blog has been most illuminating for me because it has given me great insights into the conservative view of things (as much as I disagree with it) and the kind of arguments and positions conservatives find appealing. One thing I don't want to do is exclusively peruse atheist blogs or socialist blogs or liberal blogs. I want to see what the other side has to say. If they have good arguments, I might change my mind.

For example, I am still waiting for a tiny little piece of evidence suggesting that homosexual marriage is bad for society. I really want to know if Martin or Lee or anyone else here has something like that, because they are so vocal in condemning and opposing it.

KyCobb said...

Anonymous,

Lots of people need medical help conceiving. Their families are not strange either.

Anonymous said...

Technically speaking, Cothran never said anything specifically against or for artificial insemination.

All he said was "During the sexual revolution of the 1960s," says James Neuchterlein, "people wanted to have sex without children, but in 2010 we find ourselves trying have children without sex ..."

All he technically did was point out the paradox. Its Ironic.

Singring said...

'All he technically did was point out the paradox. Its Ironic.'

First of all, as I have pointed out, the statement itself is not ironic - it is simply absurd. Contraception did not start in the 60s, was not an idea of 'the people who think (equally paradoxically) that reproductive organs are not for reproduction' (whoever they may be - I'm certainly not one of 'those people') and it did not end in the 60s.

And if all Martin was trying to do is point out some irony, then what is this supposed to mean (you left it out of your quote):

'A strange paradox brought to you by the people who think (equally paradoxically) that reproductive organs are not for reproduction.'

???

What point is he trying to make here? Is he trying to blame infertility on those who don't agree with his exclusive doctrine on what genitals are for? How so?

Perhaps you can make sense of it and explain it to us.