Birth Control

catlover · Jan 31, 2007

Lotar said:
We have quite a few families with 5+ children at my parish. Usually the ones with many children are the ones who are most healthy. Chasing around 8 children will keep just about anyone in good shape.

That is an anecdotal observation. I can give you some anecdotal observations of large families which aren't so positive.

Having a large family is a vocation, which should be contemplated by a husband and a wife. If a person does not feel they can adequately financially and emotionally care for any child for that matter they should refrain from having children.

Caring for a child is a life long endeavor.

People may say, well they grow up and leave home. More adult children are moving back in with parents with their families.

icedtea · Jan 31, 2007

Like I said, I'd always hated kids. Once I fell in love and married my husband, I wanted to have his child. Its only natural.

Lotar · Jan 31, 2007

The sin of contraception is like most other sins: it is convenient and self-serving. It allows people to maintain a higher devotion to self. Money, time, and other selfish desires.

tulc · Jan 31, 2007

No I am not "suggesting that couples who don't have kids must love each other less than people who do have kids" I'm suggesting that couples who don't want to have children with each other don't love each other as much as couples who are open and accepting of God's blessings if He chooses to bless them as such. (emph. added)

That doesn't seem like something you would be able to know.
tulc(just a thought)

catlover · Jan 31, 2007

HowardDean said:
Like I said, I'd always hated kids. Once I fell in love and married my husband, I wanted to have his child. Its only natural.

Can't say I have hated kids, I realize they are a responsibility and having more than one can financially and psychologically handle is not a good idea....

catlover · Jan 31, 2007

Lotar said:
The sin of contraception is like most other sins: it is convenient and self-serving. It allows people to maintain a higher devotion to self. Money, time, and other selfish desires.

It's a worse sin to not use the brain God gave you and have 10 kids living in a 2 bedroom trailer. I have seen that one before, it's not pretty.

Lotar · Jan 31, 2007

catlover said:
That is an anecdotal observation. I can give you some anecdotal observations of large families which aren't so positive.

Having a large family is a vocation, which should be contemplated by a husband and a wife. If a person does not feel they can adequately financially and emotionally care for any child for that matter they should refrain from having children.

Caring for a child is a life long endeavor.

People may say, well they grow up and leave home. More adult children are moving back in with parents with their families.

Trust in God and He will not give you more than you can handle.

Openess to children is not an optional part of Christian marriage, it is commanded by God.

tulc · Jan 31, 2007

The sin of contraception is like most other sins: it is convenient and self-serving. It allows people to maintain a higher devotion to self. Money, time, and other selfish desires. (emph. added)

uhmmm it hasn't been established that it IS a sin.
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

Lotar · Jan 31, 2007

catlover said:
It's a worse sin to not use the brain God gave you and have 10 kids living in a 2 bedroom trailer. I have seen that one before, it's not pretty.

I'm sure the kids would rather not exist. Which ones do you wish had never existed? Can you pick out 8-9 that weren't worthy of being born?

Lotar · Jan 31, 2007

tulc said:
uhmmm it hasn't been established that it IS a sin.
tulc(just thought that should be pointed out)

It has been established, just some wish to reject what has always been an established point of Christian morality.

rainbowbright · Jan 31, 2007

WalkingforHim said:
Or you could use BC. Your arguement assumes procreation is the only reason for sex, which it obviously isn't.

It's completely backwards, and even dangerous, to think that one should have a child everytime they have sex.

No no and no bc is not the answer. You don't get pregnant everytime, I've been married six years and only have four kids and two of them are twins.

catlover · Jan 31, 2007

Lotar said:
I'm sure the kids would rather not exist. Which ones do you wish had never existed? Can you pick out 8-9 that weren't worthy of being born?

It's more responsible to have as many children as one can adequately feed, cloth, and house.

People say "God provides" etc. Is it providing by needing to apply to food stamps because a couple is having more children than they can afford?

Mind you, I am not opposed to food stamps nor social services, but many people on the anti-birthcontrol side of the fence, in The United States,spout "personel responsibility" and are opposed to social service.

tulc · Jan 31, 2007

It has been established, just some wish to reject what has always been an established point of Christian morality.

Ahhh! Could you point out which post that was?
tulc(must have missed it)

Lotar · Jan 31, 2007

catlover said:
It's more responsible to have as many children as one can adequately feed, cloth, and house.

People say "God provides" etc. Is it providing by needing to apply to food stamps because a couple is having more children than they can afford?

Mind you, I am not opposed to food stamps nor social services, but many people on the anti-birthcontrol side of the fence, in The United States,spout "personel responsibility" and are opposed to social service.

You didn't answer my question: Which of those children do you wish did not exist?

God will and does provide. Rejecting the gift of children in order to obtain some arbitrary standard of living that is well above 80% of the rest of the world is hardly a good reason.

The whole social welfare issue is a red herring, and quite frankly, I have never seen the correlation you are drawing out of thin air.

catlover · Jan 31, 2007

Lotar said:
You didn't answer my question: Which of those children do you wish did not exist?

God will and does provide. Rejecting the gift of children in order to obtain some arbitrary standard of living that is well above 80% of the rest of the world is hardly a good reason.

The whole social welfare issue is a red herring, and quite frankly, I have never seen the correlation you are drawing out of thin air.

No social services is not a red herring. People who have more children than they can afford often need social services to obtain things like: glasses, dental care, braces. ESSENTIALS for a child's well being. If you consider glasses, medical care, clothing and dental care a "selfish want" than I don't know what to say to you.

I never stated, those children shouldn't live. I stated people should not have more children than they can care for. I stated, and you are putting words in my mouth, there must be a fancy word for it...like "red herring".
.

desmalia · Jan 31, 2007

Lotar said:
It has been established, just some wish to reject what has always been an established point of Christian morality.

I'm sorry, but no it has not been established that contraception is a sin. Until you can prove that, all other arguments are wasted and useless.

Lotar · Jan 31, 2007

catlover said:
No social services is not a red herring. People who have more children than they can afford often need social services to obtain things like: glasses, dental care, braces. ESSENTIALS for a child's well being. If you consider glasses, medical care, clothing and dental care a "selfish want" than I don't know what to say to you.
.

It is a red herring. It is also a strawman, considering that you chose my position and then attacked me for it. I would like to see some proof on the correlation you draw, because I certainly have never seen it. I, personally, have always been an advocat for social welfare, and you can ask the Tulcster if you don't believe me.

I never stated, those children shouldn't live. I stated people should not have more children than they can care for. I stated, and you are putting words in my mouth, there must be a fancy word for it...

Well, you made it clear that they were stupid for bringing those children into the world.

catlover · Jan 31, 2007

Lotar said:
It is a red herring. It is also a strawman, considering that you chose my position and then attacked me for it. I would like to see some proof on the correlation you draw, because I certainly have never seen it. I, personally, have always been an advocat for social welfare, and you can ask the Tulcster if you don't believe me..

If you got the impression I am attacking you, I appologize. I do not wish to attack you.

That is a positive aspect of your POV-you do see the value in social services.

Lotar said:
Well, you made it clear that they were stupid for bringing those children into the world.

Not stupid, but not thinking of the best interest of their children.

It's not pretty to have children packed in a room like cord wood, especially when the woman is barely 30.

Believe me, I am not materialistic and I actually had my children sleeping with me until they were four-so we had no need for a crib etc. but I really don't see how children can be raised, 10 in a two bedroom trailer, in such an enviroment.

Lotar · Jan 31, 2007

The whole "responsibility" and "stewartship" arguments are particularly amusing when used in conjunction with social services, considering how they are paid for.

In the pre-SSA days children were your social security. You had 5+ children so that they could one day afford to support you. The problem with the system is that some people can't have children, their children die, their children are uncaring deadbeats, ect. So, Social Security (and other social benifits) played the role of the family by everyone's children to support everyone. That made it so that children are now only an indirect benifit, and because of our selfishness, people make money off the system by having fewer kids and relying on the children of other people to support them. Of course this acts like the Soviet system where eventually most people take advantage of the system and the system crashes because of it.

That is why Social Security will eventually fail, once productivity increases cannot increase fast enough to match lost population growth (and eventually population loss).

As rich as our nation is, there is no economic reason for sub-replacement level birth-rates.

desmalia · Jan 31, 2007

TwinCrier said:
You're right, God will not force His blessings on us, even though He know what is best where as we don't. We have a free will to chose the second best. Or even the worst. There are commands to "be fruitful and multiply" and I know many see that as directed to someone besides them, but that fact remains, throughout the bible it is all pro-procreation, not pro sterility and barrenness.

"Be fruitful and multiply" is a blessing, not a command. Otherwise, all people who are gifted with singleness and all sterile people are sinning because they don't have kids.

TwinCrier said:
desmalia said:

Also, that's quite an eclectic combination of verses you quoted! A couple about how God sent many blessings, including offspring, livestock, health, etc. (note, no commands given! Not to mention, does that mean that all barren, sick, poor, etc. people must be cursed by God???); and then a bunch about totally unrelated commands like refraining from having homosexual sex or sex with animals, etc. I'm surprised you would venture so far out of context to try and support your argument.

Click to expand...

Well, homosexuality and beastilaity are also forms of sexual copulation that don't result in procreation, so I think the point is very relevent. Again, you're right, we don't HAVE to accept God's blessings, but what kind of fool wouldn't want God's best, His perfect will?

Well along those lines of thought, how about this? We're commanded not to lust after anyone. So that must mean that all sex is bad because it involves lust. Oh well, no more sex for Christians!

Again, kids are a blessing for many people. But not for everyone! Some people are gifted with pastoral ministry, some are not. Some are blessed with the gift of missionary outreach, some are not. You are not qualified to dictate who God blesses with each gift.

TwinCrier said:
Birth control isn't fertility, it's infertility.
No I am not "suggesting that couples who don't have kids must love each other less than people who do have kids" I'm suggesting that couples who don't want to have children with each other don't love each other as much as couples who are open and accepting of God's blessings if He chooses to bless them as such.

That's quite a leap. Being open to on particular blessing dictates how much two people love each other? OK, you keep on believing that you love your husband more than I could ever love mine. Hope that makes you feel better.

BTW, my husband and I are always open to God's blessings. Consider the possibility that the ones He has in store for us may be different than the ones He has for you.

Birth Control

catlover

Guest

Well-Known Member

Swift Eagle Justice

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

catlover

Guest

catlover

Guest

Swift Eagle Justice

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Swift Eagle Justice

Swift Eagle Justice

Veteran

catlover

Guest

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Swift Eagle Justice

catlover

Guest

sounds like somebody's got a case of the mondays

Swift Eagle Justice

catlover

Guest

Swift Eagle Justice

sounds like somebody's got a case of the mondays

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency