Why Contraception is Wrong

John McNichol

Biblically, the story of Onan in Genesis Chapter 38 was a blunt enough message for the first nineteen centuries of Christianity: preventing children by artificial means was offensive to God. So much so that God summarily killed Onan for it (Gen 38: 8-10). Worse, after Christ’s resurrection, Catholics and protestant theologians gave Onan the dubious honor of having a particular mortal sin named after him.

Add to that, whenever a woman got pregnant in the Bible, it was because God had mercy on her, God opened her womb, or God blessed her. Children were seen as a blessing by God to be celebrated, not a chore to be avoided (Ps 127:3-5, Prov 17:6, to name a few).

But , I prefer not only to look at the Biblical reasons alone. I also like to look at common sense. I also like food. Food has two components, if we think about it: There is both a biological and an emotional aspect to any food we eat. Food is eaten with friends. It’s often pleasurable to consume. It’s also a necessity for life.  Ancient Rome, however, was known for its pleasurable excesses. It was not unheard of for party guests to vomit their food up after dinner, and return for more food later. Cicero in his work Pro Rege Deiotaro noted Julius Caesar himself would take emetic drugs for the expressed purpose of making himself vomit after dinner. For ancient Roman partygoers, filling up on good food wasn’t considered a bad thing at all. And, if you found yourself too full, a guest just emptied the contents of their stomach, and then could return to the party able to consume more delectables.

Today, when someone tries to lose weight by vomiting the food they eat, we say they have an eating disorder. Just so, when the ancient Romans sought to separate the pleasure of eating from its biological purpose, we see it as disordered. Or we just call it gross. Take your pick.

If this sounds odd to bring up in an article allegedly about contraception, consider this: Artificial contraception of any sort, physical, chemical or behavioral, does with our sexuality exactly what the Romans did with food. There are two aspects to human sexuality as well: unitive and pro-creative. Sexual activity done right is unitive, bonding two people through pleasurable activity. There is also a biological purpose to sex, which (hopefully) any seventh-grader knows is the creation of children. Contraception separates the unitive from the pro-creative, insisting on having the pleasure of sex while cutting off its biological purposes.

Why do we care? Because separating the emotional from the physical leads to disorders, with sexuality as much as food. Skeptics may scoff, but consider this quote from Sigmund Freud (no friend of the Catholic Church, mind you!):

“The common characteristic of all perversions… is that they have abandoned reproduction as their aim. We term sexual activity perverse when it has renounced the aim of reproduction and follows the pursuit of pleasure as an independent goal. And so you realize that the turning point in the development of sexual life lies in its subjugation to the purpose of reproduction. Everything this side of the turning point, everything that has given up this purpose and serves the pursuit of pleasure alone, must carry the term “perverse” and as such be regarded with contempt.” [Freud, A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. New York, Boni and Liveright, 1920, p. 273]

Thus, where separating the pleasure of eating from the biological purpose of eating leads to eating disorders, the separation of the pleasure of sexuality from the biological purpose of sex leads to sexual disorders, or perversions.  Does this mean every couple that uses contraception will become perverts? Not necessarily. However, the dangers to our culture of a contraceptive mentality are undeniable for one who looks honestly at our cultural history.

Until recently, all Christian churches, Catholic and protestant, were opposed to artificial contraception. Church fathers as early as Clement of Alexandria in 195 A.D. wrote against it in his work The Instructor of Children.  Even the first protestant writers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin spoke against artificial contraception in their writings. Luther called contraception “…a most disgraceful sin…far more atrocious than incest and adultery,” and Calvin called contraception “wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit.”

Less than 100 years have passed since the first protestant church accepted contraception at the Anglican Lambeth Conference in 1930. Since that time, Western culture has come to see children as problems to be avoided rather than blessings to be celebrated. If I sound off base, ask a mother of more than four children how often she’s heard cruel comments versus praises about the size of her family.

Some have argued that the use of contraception prevents abortion. Unfortunately thus far, the opposite has happened. Abortion for many is no longer seen as murder. Instead it’s hailed as a civil right only sexually repressed, women-hating foods would oppose.

This demand for a woman’s alleged control over her body is more than a desire to avoid morning sickness. For a person who will not acknowledge the existence of God or Heaven, the sexual act is the closest to the transcendent that they will experience. Abortion and contraception thus go hand-in-hand, for both allow those addicted to the pleasure of sexual activity to avoid its biological purpose, and both are seen as essential to enjoying sexual pleasure without its corresponding responsibility for new life.

Does this mean a couple needs to have a child each time they have relations? No.
Does this mean you have to try to have as many children as possible? Again, no.

The Catholic Church has been clear that using natural methods such as Natural Family Planning (NFP for short), which use women’s temperatures and other body signs, are acceptable means of planning one’s family.

“Isn’t that the same as contraception?” some argue, “What’s the difference?”

Good question. What’s the difference between saying no to an extra dessert, and making yourself vomit to make room for it?  If you truly don’t know that, I can’t help you.  But if you want to learn how to use NFP, try contacting your local chapter of the Couple-to-Couple League.  If you want to know in more detail why artificial contraception is wrong, read Humane Vitae, the Catholic Church’s restating of it’s teaching in greater detail. Written in the 1960s, the predictions of its 17th paragraph are particularly insightful.

And if you want to stay emotionally and physically healthy, enjoy your married life. And keep your dinner down.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on google
Google+
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on pinterest
Pinterest

271 thoughts on “Why Contraception is Wrong”

  1. Contraception^s con men. The Catholic Church^s history on holding sexual relations in marriage as a necessary evil tainted with sin is indisputable.Pope gregory the Great hailed a man who had sexual relations with his wife should clean himself before entering a church because he is rife with impurity & sin,Aquinnas argued priests should be celibate because sexual relations defiled them,Pope innocent II declared at a Synod Of Claremont in 1130 ” Since priests are God^s temple…it offends their dignity to lie in conjugal bed & live in impurity”. Notice how the pope refers to sex with your wife as impure,this has no reference to contraception.Many popes hailed this Moral theologians in the medeval times knew sex in marriage was dirt but argued how much dirt was involved.Before Vatican II theology books holding the gentals dishonourable & sin being present in sexual reations were not uncommon.Pure Garbage.Recent popes backed out of the claim regarding Onan because he was not killed for contraception.The egg was found in 1826,the seed of the male was not human life as Aquinas believed.The Church—which is the people long rejected this nonsense that every act of contraception is a sin

  2. “What’s the difference between saying no to an extra dessert, and making yourself vomit to make room for it? ”

    Now, riddle me this: What’s the difference between saying no to sugar in your coffee and choosing to add to it a calorie-free chemical that mimics the sweetness of a substance that has calories? What’s the difference between saying no to chips and choosing to eat chips made with an indigestible fat that mimics the mouthfeel of fat that has calories? What is the difference between saying no to extra desserts and getting part of one’s intestine cut off from the digestion process in order to prevent it from absorbing all the calories consumed? What about stapling the stomach to make it impossible to choose to “sin” by eating excessive calories?

    1. Theology fail. While children are always a blessing, that doesn’t mean that the act that brought about their conception was a blessed one. Children are conceived after immoral if consensual acts of fornication, too (premarital sex, adulterous relationships). Doesn’t mean those acts are blessed even though the child him or herself is.

    2. Children are not always a blessing. If the woman does not want a kid there is nothing at all that will be a blessing in her continuing the misery of the unwanted pregnancy. In fact if it is unwanted I view it more as a way for anti-choicers to punish women who have se x for a reason besides pregnancy.

    3. Children are always a blessing; they just aren’t always a pleasure. 🙂
      No blessing at all in continuing an unwanted pregnancy? Mr. Bocelli is not impressed (read below). A lot of folks have been blessed by his music, in fact…

    4. For me there would be NO blessing in an unwanted pregnancy. I’d be left with nothing to live for.

    5. Really? You’re life would be absolutely over if you had a child?

      Reality check, Someone45: both men and women have been fielding unintended pregnancies for the last…well, forever. 🙂

      Thinking short-term, unfortunately, leads to the type of societal view you describe, where a girl thinks her life is absolutely over if she gets pregnant.

      Is it a lifestyle *change*? Sure.

      But that’s all it is…a change. As a dad myself,, I can say it’s not easy, but because I stuck to it, I am a much, much better person for it.

      Blessings aren’t always easy…but if taken the right way, they ARE good. Always.

      But you don’t have to believe me…why don’t you argue with this lady. She was an unintended pregnancy of the most difficult sort, and she lists others born under her circumstance here:

      http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/famous-people-conceieved-in-rape.html

    6. Yes if I had an UNWANTED- not unintended (learn the difference) I’d have nothing to live for. The kid would destroy everything good in my life and give me only misery every day.

    7. Really?
      So, really…what’s the difference? 🙂 Or do you often plan for things you don’t want? 😉

      Nothing to live for, hm? I find it interesting that adoption’s never brought up by the pro-contraception side in these debates.

      ‘everything good’? What are some of those goods a child destroys? I will say that there are freedoms I do not have today, as a dad, that I had when I was 17.

      But if a 40 year old man or woman is still insisting on having the life they had as a teenager, we say there’s something wrong, no?

      Not that you *have* to have a child. No. But: as a dad, I can say that I have different joys than I had as a teenager. and I’d rather have those joys today than the ones I had then.

      How do you know ‘the kid’ would give you misery every day? I’m unaware that there are crystal balls which are that effective these days.

      And no pleasure at all? If you cannot take pleasure at all from your own child, I’d gently suggest the issue lies not with the child.

      Kids aren’t the problems, someone45. The adults with the wrong attitudes about sex and kids are the problems.

      Besides, you’ve given a good reason why you ought not engage in sexual activity; not why the author is wrong about contraception.

      Your move. 🙂

    8. I use BC so I plan to NOT get pregnant since a pregnancy would only bring me misery and a child would destroy my life.
      Why would I bring up adoption? I’d still have to suffer the misery of pregnancy and I am NOT a breeding cow for someone else

      I want a child free life and a kid would only bring me misery and hold me back. If you want to know my views on kids google 100 reasons to be child free childfreedom blogspt.

      There is NOTHING wrong with wanting a child free life… it is wrong however to think a couple should be punished for having sex.

    9. Unfortunately, I think you have chosen not to read to author’s post as to how ABC affects the person’s view of children.

      Based upon your writings, you give a clear notion that you feel children are a burden to be avoided, rather than a blessing to be celebrated.

      I am very glad my own folks did not treat me as though I were a burden, but a blessing to them instead. As a result, I have never looked upon my mother, wife, or any woman as a ‘breeding cow’; those words have come out of your mouth, first.

      Could it not be, Someone45, that your own thinking has been altered in this direction? Before you answer, I would encourage you to think on your own w/out reacting.

      Please further note the terms you use to describe children: burden. punishment. misery. kid.

      Children=bad.

      These are consequences of societal acceptance of Contraception, and you have illustrated it more with each posting.

      You are right; there is nothing wrong with a child-free life. Many Catholic Saints were called to just such a life, married and unmarried.

      However, I would gently suggest you read the quote by Sigmund Freud in this article to see where a societal divorce between the emotional and biological purposes of sex necessarily lead.

    10. Children ARE a burden and there would be nothing good in having a child for me.
      Pregnancy IS misery and a child is a burden and a punishment.

    11. So, were you a burden and/or a punishment to your mom? I sincerely doubt that you actually were.

      More accurately, were you made to feel that way?

      Most of human history sees children very, very differently. Why do you think in the modern era we see children as problems to be avoided, rather than blessing to be celebrated?

    12. Have you ever wondered why that might be?

      Someone, children are a burden? Life ruining misery?
      Were you a burden?
      No.
      You, as a child, were a blessing. A blessing. And you are a blessing today.
      And anyone who didn’t recognize it, be they parent, sibling or teacher, was wrong. So wrong.
      Many things are a misery that are worth it in the end. And every cild is worth it. You, Me. Everyone who reads this. We all were worth it.

    13. I understand quite well how you view children, someone45.
      What I wonder, and what you continue to dodge, is why?

    14. You keep on saying that….I do not think it means what you think it means. 🙂
      Seriously, why do you think that? You keep saying what you think, but not why.

    15. Yes it means EXACTLY what I think it means…
      There is not one good thing about pregnancy and kids on the other hand here is 100 reasons to stay child free

      1.You will be happier and less likely to suffer from depression.

      2. (Assuming you get married), you will have a happier marriage.

      3. You will have the capacity and time for meaningful, engaged, quality adult relationships.

      4. You will be able to save for a comfortable retirement.

      5. You are more likely to be an engaged and involved aunt or uncle because you are not jaded and worn down by your own kids.

      6. You can fully pursue and develop your career.

      7. You can fully pursue your educational goals.

      8. You can decorate your home as you wish with as many beautiful and/or
      breakable things as you wish and you will not have to child-proof your
      house.

      9. Your house will be free of junky, plastic kindercrap.

      10. Your spouse will get all the love and attention he/she deserves. You will come first in your spouse/partner’s life.

      11. Your pets will get all the love and attention they deserve.

      12. You can eat whatever foods you wish at whatever time of the day you
      wish out in the open, whether it be a gourmet, exotic meal, or chocolate
      chip cookies.

      13. You never have to yell, scold, correct or punish anyone (assuming your spouse and pets are well-behaved 😉

      14. Your home will be a quiet and welcoming oasis, instead of a chaotic zoo.

      15. Your identity will remain firmly intact.

      16. You will enjoy personal privacy.

      17. You will get a full night’s sleep every night.

      18. You will have the time and energy to exercise regularly and take care of your health and appearance.

      19. You will stay informed and engaged in current events and will remain an interesting conversationalist.

      20. You will retain your attention span.

      21. You will minimize your carbon footprint and do far less damage to the environment than your childed peers.

      22. You can be yourself (for better or worse) without worrying about having to be a good example.

      23. You can live in whatever town or city you like without concerning
      yourself with quality of school districts, child-friendliness, etc.

      24. You will be able to travel more frequently and your travels will not
      be limited to summer or school break times, or to kid-friendly
      destinations.

      25. Speaking of vacations, you will be able to use your paid time off
      for vacations, instead of burning your days to take care of sick kids.

      26. You can spend an entire weekend vegging on the couch in your pajamas if you choose.

      27. You will maintain the capacity to be spontaneous – to do things spur
      of the moment, without complex planning or babysitter arrangements.

      28. You can curse, swear, debate and vent freely in your home without worrying about censoring yourself.

      29. You will never have to suffer the agony of childbirth.

      30. You will be better able to retain your youthfulness and sex appeal
      because your body will not be ravaged by childbearing and a crappy diet.

      31. You can eat your meals in peace without having to continually jump up and down to serve people.

      32. You can own whatever type of car you prefer – you are not limited to mini-vans, SUVs and other family-friendly gas-guzzlers.

      33. You can live in whatever type of home you like. Spiral staircases,
      wooden stairs, sharp-edged countertops, a small backyard, busy street
      are not necessarily deal-breakers.

      34. You can buy a much more affordable home because you won’t need many
      bedrooms and you won’t have to limit yourself to more expensive,
      uppercrusty-good-school-district-towns.

      35. Your grocery bill will be at least half of that of a family with children.

      36. Your utility bills will be much lower than a family with children.

      37. Your gasoline expenses will be much lower than a family with children (fewer shopping trips and errands, no chauffeuring).

      38. You will spend your weekend doing things you enjoy, instead of
      attending boring children’s soccer games and birthday parties, or
      playing chauffeur.

      39. You will have the energy and interest to maintain an active, attentive and enjoyable sex life.

      40. You will have the freedom to come and go at will – you will remain independent, self-determined and autonomous.

      41. You will have plenty of down time if you desire – naps, reading, meditating, lounging, listening to music.

      42. Your life will have a manageable and comfortable pace. You will not
      be harried and stressed out, running around like a headless chicken
      trying to do it all.

      43. You will age more slowly and will have fewer wrinkles than your child-encumbered peers.

      44. Every night can be “date night” if you want it to be.

      45. Your life will be one of far fewer worries, compared to your childed peers.

      46. You will have the time and energy to actively contribute to the community – volunteer work, civic involvement, etc.

      47. You can watch whatever you like on television at any time without
      censoring and you can watch complete shows or movies without constant
      interruptions.

      48. You will spend far less time and effort on housework than families
      with children (the time and effort you will save on laundry alone is
      substantial).

      49. You will have the time, energy and money to pursue whatever hobbies and interests you like.

      50. You will not be contributing to the world’s overpopulation crisis.

      51. You will not add to the drain on environmental resources.

      52. You will never go through morning sickness or post-partum depression.

      53. You will never have to endure the loss of a child.

      54. You will never have to endure the strain and upset of raising a diseased or disabled child.

      55. You will never have to deal with raising a troubled child (drugs,
      pregnancy, STDs, delinquency, truancy, crime) and will never be saddled
      with raising grandchildren because your teen child gets pregnant (or
      gets someone pregnant).

      56. You will have spending money and can actually spend it on yourself if you choose.

      57. The physical intimacy you share with your partner/spouse will remain
      romantic and will never have to be planned, scheduled, forced or
      manipulated like a science experiment for the sake of getting pregnant.

      58. You will never suffer from burnout from trying to obtain the “have-it-all” lifestyle.

      59. Your life will continue to be flexible. You can change your mind and your plans at a moment’s notice.

      60. You will not have to change diapers, wipe snotty noses or all of the many other stomach-turning things a parent must do.

      61. You will not have to endure crying, screaming, fighting, temper tantrums and other surly child behavior.

      62. You will never have to fight with a child over homework or worse yet, have to sit and do homework with a child.

      63. You will never have to attend PTA meetings, parent-teacher conferences or other school-related drudgery.

      64. You will not have to save thousands upon thousands of dollars for a
      child’s college education (or more importantly stress and worry about
      where the money will come from).

      65. You never have to set foot in a Chuck E. Cheese.

      66. You will never have endure endless hours of noisy, electronic toys shrieking through your house.

      67. You can enjoy alone time when you need it.

      68. You will be more easily able to escape a bad marriage (if you should
      need to) than if you had kids, without having to maintain ties with
      your ex.

      69. You will not have to live the life of a hand-servant.

      70. Assuming you get married, your marriage will be more egalitarian
      than it would be if you had children. You will not have to adhere to
      traditional gender roles.

      71. You will never have to pay child support.

      72. You and your spouse/partner can be intimate freely in your home
      without having to lock doors, muffle sounds or otherwise try to hide
      what you are doing.

      73. You will never have to endure the sound of crappy teen pop music blaring through the house.

      74. Holidays like Christmas can be affordable, manageable and relaxed if you choose.

      75. You will never be disappointed on Mother’s Day or Father’s Day (unless you have unreasonable expectations of your pets).

      76. You will never have to go on a “play date” and be stuck sitting with
      boring yuppy moms and dads you can’t stand just so your kids can play
      with each other.

      77. You can beautify your property with gardens, waterfalls, trees and
      other natural features instead of stripping it bare for a play area, or
      junking it up with swing sets, sporting equipment and toys.

      78. Packing for vacations and day trips will remain a breeze.

      79. Your vacations will actually be relaxing and you will come home
      rested and refreshed, instead of wiped out and in need of a second
      vacation.

      80. If you have medical insurance and your employer requires you to
      contribute, your premiums will be much lower than they would if you had
      kids.

      81. You will never have to be embarrassed by a child who is a bad representation of you.

      82. You will never have to sit through sappy and annoying kiddie movies or t.v. shows.

      83. You can have kid-time if you desire it by taking your nieces,
      nephews or friends’ children for an afternoon. And then when you’ve had
      enough, you can give them back and go back to your peaceful life.

      84. You will never have to worry about whether you are a bad parent or
      the long-term psychological damage you are inflicting on a child.

      85. Going out for an errand will entail hopping into your car, buckling
      your seatbelt and leaving instead of a full half hour production to get
      the kids dressed, fed, ready and situated in the car.

      86. You will never have to pack and lug around huge bags of stuff every time you leave the house.

      87. On long drives, you can listen to whatever music, radio
      programs or books on tape you enjoy – instead of grating kiddie music.

      88. Your pets can roam freely in your house with no fear of being
      sat on, squeezed, poked, or having their ears, hair or tails pulled.

      89. New Years Eve will continue to be a rockin’ late night blow-out affair for you.

      90. Your mornings will be quiet and relaxed, instead of a chaotic,
      beat-the-clock marathon having multiple people to corral, bathe, feed,
      dress and get out the door on time.

      91. You will not have to pay thousands of dollars a year on child
      care, or burden your family members by using them as babysitters. You
      will never have to hire a babysitter.

      92. Being aggravated, frustrated and irate at home will be a rare occurrence, as opposed to a daily occurrence if you had kids.

      93. Your neighbors will appreciate living next door to you.

      94. Your boss will appreciate having a reliable employee who works
      her full hours, calls out sick only rarely, can work overtime if needed,
      and take on special projects. You might even get a raise, or get
      promoted.

      95. Your friends will appreciate your broad interests, your
      attentive listening and conversational skills, and the fact that you
      won’t bore them to death talking endlessly about babies and
      childrearing.

      96. You will rarely get sick.

      97. You won’t be last on your list of people to take care of.

      98. You will never have to feel torn between your career and your
      family – feeling like you are spread too thin and not doing a great job
      at either.

      99. You will set your own agenda.

      and…last but not least:

      100. You will live a life of pride, knowing that you are courageous trailblazer!

    16. [smile]

      100+ Reasons to Have Children

      July 19, 2010 by KimC51 Comments

      Lately I’ve come across several lists of reasons not to have children. I find it very sad and telling that nearly all of the authors’ reasons are based in immaturity, materialism, myths, and misconceptions. Yes, children require work, money and personal sacrifice, but these are all things we do willingly because we love them. These are joyful sacrifices for a worthwhile cause.

      I couldn’t help but work on my own version. Here are a few of the perks of having children, in no particular order. Some are tongue-in-cheek, while others are dead serious. I’ll let you try to guess which is which.

      Please understand that I am not criticizing those who do not have children, particularly those who struggle with infertility. I am also not suggesting that you or I should have children just so that we can save some bucks when it’s time to file taxes, or use the stork space in the grocery store parking lot. My point is that children are a blessing and a delight, not a burden to be avoided at all costs.

      What would you add to the list below?

      100+ Reasons to Have Children

      Have a happier marriage.

      Pay less income taxes.

      Learn to share, and like it.

      The ultimate diet plan: morning sickness and breastfeeding.

      Enjoy snuggles on demand, around the clock.

      Cuteness abounds.

      Disposable diapers. There. I said it.

      Receive preferential treatment in grocery lines.

      Be seated first (or last, if you prefer) on planes.

      Park in the “stork” space at grocery stores.

      Have an excuse to buy cool toys and cute little outfits.

      Children will love you on your worst day, and…

      they think you’re beautiful, even on bad hair days,

      or when you’re not wearing makeup.

      Free entertainment: kids are hilarious.

      Laughter is good for your health. See above.

      Have family still living when you’re old.

      Have someone to help you when you’re old.

      Grandkids!

      Have someone to help care for your pets.

      But who needs pets? Kids are way cuter, and they last longer.

      Unlike pets, kids eventually learn to take care of their own poop.

      Get a lollipop every time you go to the bank, along with your children.

      Tone your arms the old-fashioned way: tote a toddler.

      Kids eat free at many restaurants.

      Have an excuse to buy junk food.

      Sharing your junk food means less stays on your own hips.

      Children will eat and appreciate your failed cooking experiments.

      Embarrass your kids. You won’t believe how fun it is. Displays of affection with your spouse work well for this.

      Be better able to encourage other parents during rough times with their children because you’ve been-there-done-that.

      Blow bubbles.

      Give your friends somewhere to send their kids’ hand-me-downs.

      Burn calories: play with your kids.

      Kids will help hone your reactions with obstacle courses on the stairs.

      Save money by not buying birth control.

      Have sex without worrying about pregnancy. It’s fun.

      Ask anyone who has given birth: the pains of labor are worth it.

      Pregnancy reduces menstrual cramps in subsequent periods.

      Pregnancy lowers your risk of ovarian cancer.

      Breastfeeding lowers your risk of breast cancer,

      and uterine cancer,

      and osteoporosis.

      Not using birth control lowers your risk of ectopic pregnancy.

      Think pregnancy dooms you to getting fat? Take a look at my mom with her 14 kids. Can you even tell which one she is?

      Pregnancy requires you to eat more. I can appreciate that.

      Be motivated to be a better person. Little eyes are watching.

      Help raise the languishing birth rate.

      Learn alongside your children.

      Read books you never would have discovered on your own.

      Reread your childhood favorites with and to a new generation.

      See the world through new, unjaded eyes.

      See yourself through your baby’s eyes. It’s amazing.

      See yourself through your children’s eyes. You’ll never be the same again.

      See your flaws reflected in your children. It’s enlightening and humbling.

      Kids will make you proud and keep you humble.

      If you make a mess while eating, everyone will assume the kids did it.

      Kid will say what you wish you could say, but can’t.

      Strengthen your relationship with your own parents by becoming a parent yourself.

      Stay physically active. It’s much harder to be lazy when little ones depend on you.

      Improved immune system. It’s a law of nature: Moms never get sick.

      If you do get sick, you have someone to take care of you without your spouse taking time off work.

      Baby smiles.

      Carrying a baby? Strangers will smile at you.

      Babies are also a great conversation starter.

      Learn to delight in everyday occurrences.

      Translate toddler gibberish with ease for puzzled onlookers.

      Your own love for your child gives you a small taste of how much God loves His children.

      Live vicariously: remember that toy you never got as a child, but you’re too old to want it now? Let your kids try it out.

      Relive your childhood: remember the toy you did get as a child? Let your kids try it out.

      Rediscover the joy of crayons.

      Job security: moms have it.

      Learn and believe that happiness really doesn’t come from material wealth…

      …yet be amazed at how much joy you can buy your child with a quarter.

      Kids are cheap.

      Marvel that 2 people can produce children that are better-looking than either parent. Heredity is a strange and wonderful thing.

      Be welcomed home like a returning war hero every time you go grocery shopping or to the post office.

      Be looked at like this:

      Soft little fingers and toes. They’re cute on other people’s children, but utterly priceless on your own children.

      The unbearable cuteness of newborn-size diapers. (credit: Deanna)

      Discover your super powers: make milk, and heal mortal wounds with a kiss.

      Ask any parent you know if they regret having kids.

      Learn to appreciate simple pleasures: ice cream cones, a single M&M, homemade cookies.

      Do you love your spouse? Experience a miracle: a new person who looks like both of you.

      After 10 years of children, washing dishes becomes optional. (credit: Deanna)

      Get special treatment on Mother’s Day.

      Breakfast in bed is fun, even when it’s cheerios and multi vitamins. (credit: Becca)

      Experience the triumph of potty training.

      Have the advantage of a youthful memory again: have your kids remind you about important things. (credit: Megan)

      Expand your wardrobe: share clothes with your teens.

      Gather candy from the piñata without getting funny looks.

      Have help cooking.

      Be a safer driver,

      In a safer vehicle.

      Free or cheap manicures and pedicures. I pay a dollar.

      Ditto for back/shoulder rubs.

      Perpetually late? You don’t even have to blame it on the kids. People will assume.

      Vanity? You’ll look at your baby in the mirror instead of yourself.

      Paint your kids’ nails in a color you like but could never wear yourself.

      Have your bed made for $.25/day. Maid service has never been so cheap or cheerful, and there’s no need to report payments to the IRS.

      If you’ve never had a baby fall asleep on your chest, you just don’t know what you’re missing.

      Homemade friends. My children are some of my favorite companions.

      Kids with money ROCK! They buy their own clothes, treat you to Starbucks, and buy you unbelievable birthday/Christmas gifts.

      World domination through militant fecundity! [maniacal laughter]

      Children are part of God’s purpose for creating marriage:But did He not make them one,
      Having a remnant of the Spirit?
      And why one?
      He seeks godly offspring. Malachi 2:15

    17. So you think sex should only be done for reproduction? Explains why you anti-choice people are so bitter and uptight.

    18. Strawman argument. I simply stated a biological fact – sex is biologically intended to create kids. If you don’t want to have kids, the safest and most effective way of doing so is by not engaging in sex. But if you choose to engage in sex, the consequence may be that the biological act of sex results in its intended biological consequence – conception.

      Do you hate biology?

    19. Sex has other purposes besides reproduction and to expect a woman to be willing to get pregnant every time she has sex is disgusting, wrong, and degrades women.

      I do not want kids, so I use reliable BC and if I am the unlucky 1% I’ll have an abortion.

    20. Hm, also not what I said. You often engage in the strawman fallacy.

      Do you deny that conception is the primary purpose of sex from a purely biological standpoint?

      So, you will freely engage in the act that is biologically intended to create children, and if the act works as intended from a biological standpoint, you will kill an innocent child. That seems very illogical. The most logical stance, if you are so against having children that you will kill any that result from your actions, is to not engage in the action that creates them.

    21. I am NOT concerned with what the “biological” point of sex is because I never want children so I will never engage in sex for that reason. I should not be punished if I am unlucky and my BC fails.

      If it fails I WILL abort the embryo because I have a right to defend my life from ruin and misery and harm.

    22. Your biology doesn’t care what you want, or what you intend (or don’t intend) when you engage in sex. It’s like being mad at your body for gaining weight if you eat fast food three times per day.

      Therefore, logically, the safest and most effective way for you to prevent pregnancy is to not engage in sex. It’s illogical to kill an innocent child if you freely choose to engage in the act that creates him/her.

      What proof do you have that a child would cause you “ruin, misery, and harm”? Do you think all children cause ruin, misery, and harm to their parents’ lives? Did you cause ruin, misery, and harm to the lives of your parents?

    23. It doesn’t matter if biology cares or not. I am the one in control of MY body so if my BC fails I will have an abortion.

      An embryo is not a child and abortion does not kill it. It simply prevents the embryo from developing into a child.

      A unwanted pregnancy and child would cause me ruin, misery, and harm because it would destroy my life and leave me with nothing to live for. I’d lose everything I have worked for in my life and be left with really nothing to live for.

    24. Absolutely you are in control of your body. You can choose not to engage in the act that creates children, and then you have nothing to worry about. But if you do, then you have no control over the biological processes that result.

      An embryo is a human being. It is an organism of the species homo sapiens. A child is a colloquial name for a young human being. Therefore, an embryo is a child. This is biological fact.

      “A unwanted pregnancy and child would cause me ruin, misery, and harm because it would destroy my life and leave me with nothing to live for. I’d lose everything I have worked for in my life and be left with really nothing to live for.”

      It seems to me that you cannot know with 100% certainty that a child would destroy your life, unless you are omniscient. What is your evidence?

    25. I am NOT giving up sex for life and living my life alone.

      I will continue to have sex with my bf and if my BC fails I will abort the embryo.
      An embryo is NOT a child… it is a POTENTIAL child. It needs its host to develop into an actual child.

      I do know that a child would destroy my life. I know the kind of life that comes with kids and it is not something I would enjoy. I enjoy being able to sleep through the night without some screaming brat waking me up, I enjoy being able to spend time with my bf without some screaming brat ruining it, I enjoy the fact that my dogs and cat are not terrorized by some brat who thinks he is playing with them…. I know I life with kids would bring me NOTHING but misery and resentment.

    26. Who says you have to life your life alone if you choose not to have sex?

      An embryo is a child. I gave you the definition above. Do you deny that biological fact? A newborn also needs the help of adults to grow and thrive. Do you think that newborns are not children?

      If you don’t want to parent a child, you don’t have to. That’s why adoption is available to people who choose not to parent.

      And again, how do you know with certainty that a child would bring you misery? Why are you only looking at the negative aspects of parenthood?

      People change. I have friends who swore that they didn’t want kids at age 20 but were desperately trying to get pregnant at age 30. You never know.

    27. Do you really think anyone will be in a romantic relationship/married to someone who refuses to ever have sex with them? An embryo is a POTENTIAL child.
      And again adoption is an alternative to parenting NOT to the misery of pregnancy and I KNOW that a life with kids would bring me nothing but misery.
      I know what I want out of life better than an anti-choicer does. There are no positive aspects of parenting for me to look at so all I have to look at is the negative.

    28. I think it is possible to have a relationship that is not based solely on sex, yes. If, God forbid, something ever happened to my husband (an illness or injury) where we could no longer have sex, I wouldn’t toss him aside in favor of finding another sexual partner.

      How do you KNOW that a life with kids, or even a pregnancy, would bring you nothing but misery? You keep saying that but can’t offer any evidence. How do you know? Have you ever been wrong in your life?

      I’m not an anti-choicer. In fact, I think choices are good things. But I don’t think anyone should have the choice to kill an innocent human being. Why do you think that murder is a viable choice? Do you oppose all current laws against murder as well?

    29. But that would be because of something tragic-(and I hope neither of us are in that situation)- someone making the choice to refuse to have sex when they are able to is different.

    30. “Do you really think anyone will be in a romantic relationship/married to someone who refuses to ever have sex with them?”

      That’s a bit of a disturbing comment. The reason is because it sounds like you are saying a person’s worthiness for being in a romantic relationship is based on whether or not they will “put out” (if you pardon the crass expression). Sex is not a necessary part of being a romantic relationship. Just ask anyone married to someone whose has been permanently damaged so that they are no longer capable of having sex. I hope you realize that there is much more to a romantic relationship than sex.

      “An embryo is a POTENTIAL child.”

      Sure. And I am a potential mid-aged or elderly person. I’m still a human being even if I’m currently not elderly.

      “And again adoption is an alternative to parenting NOT to the misery of pregnancy and I KNOW that a life with kids would bring me nothing but misery.”

      So you admit that an embryo is a kid? If you are so concerned about having a miserable pregnancy, why do you engage in an activity that will bring it about? It’s like saying you are afraid of heights but you plan on sky diving. You don’t have to sky dive.

      “I know what I want out of life better than an anti-choicer does.”

      What happens though is something happens to prevent what you want out of life from happening? Say you loose your legs.

      “There are no positive aspects of parenting for me to look at so all I have to look at is the negative.”

      Why? You sound as though you want to be miserable. Life doesn’t always go the way we plan for it to. One can be miserable or one can change course. The only thing consistent about life is that it changes.

    31. A part of a romantic relationship IS sex. If someone is unwilling to do that FOR LIFE- they become a friend. If the person is unable to it is 100% different than someone being unwilling to.

      An embryo is a POTENTIAL kid it needs its host to develop into an actual kid.

    32. “If someone is unwilling to do that FOR LIFE- they become a friend.”

      I’m unaware of people having sex all the time. Most people have temporary abstinence and some permanently. Gandhi gave up sex at around age 40. It was a common thing that Hindus did. He did so because his wife asked him. Point is not everyone holds the view that you do. Sex is only one part, but not the whole of a romantic relationship.

      “An embryo is a POTENTIAL kid it needs its host to develop into an actual kid.”

      I’m a potential elderly person. In order to turn into an elderly person, I will need an adequate amount of oxygen, food, water, and an over-all general good health to reach that point. Someone denying me this environment would be essentially killing me. And people tend to frown on that.

      And you are incorrect. An embryo doesn’t need a host. That would imply that the embryo is a parasite. An embryo needs a parent more specifically a mother in order to survive. Much like living in a smog-free environment will help me survive.

    33. An embryo does need a host…
      1.It cannot survive without a host
      2.It dumps toxic waste into its host
      3.It leeches nutrients from its host
      4.It harms, maims, and can kill its host
      5.It can destroy the life of the host

    34. I don’t think you understood my comment. From a biological point of view, a host/parasite relationship is among different species. Like a tape worm is a different species than a human and cannot survive outside it’s host (the human). An embryo is of the same species. It’s offspring. And therefore resides in it’s maternal parent ie mother, not a host.

    35. It fits the basic definition of a parasite… would you feel better if I said it was similar to a parasite?

    36. I’m sorry but if I were your biology teacher your answer would not be acceptable. The basic definition of a parasite is being a different species from the host. Offspring is the correct definition of an embryo since it is the same species. They aren’t similar. Parasites, generally speaking, can never survive outside the host. Offspring are designed to eventually reside separately from it’s parents either through live birth or an egg.

    37. All of my biology teachers called the embryo a potential life.
      While inside its host a ZEF is nothing but a worthless parasite.

    38. I feel like the mother from the book The Giver when I say this but….precision of language please.

      A zygote, embryo, or fetus is not a parasite. It cannot be a parasite because it is the same species. It is called offspring. To say that it is a parasite (or a worthless parasite) is ramping up rhetoric. It’s ontologically impossible for a zygote, embryo, or fetus to be a parasite. To reiterate, it’s simply incorrect to call a zygote, embryo, or fetus a parasite.

      Furthermore, an embryo is not a potential life. This isn’t physics. There’s no such thing as potential. It is either alive or dead or non-existent. So let’s take this apart backwards shall we…an embryo is something therefore it’s not a non-existent thing. An embryo isn’t dead either. If it were dead, it would not be able to grow. Instead it would decompose. Therefore, by deductive reasoning and based on objective observation, one can safely assume that since an embryo exists and is not dead, it must be alive.

      If you wish to argue personhood, that is a separate issue. However I can’t really have a discussion with you if you cannot stick to the basics of biology and engage in correct word usage.

    39. It is SIMILAR to a parasite… It needs its host and leeches nutrients from its host and can harm, maim, and kill its host and it dumps toxic waste into its host.

      The embryo IS a potential life because without a willing host it will never come to term.

    40. I’m sorry, but you can say it’s similar until the cows come home. That’s just subjective reasoning. An embryo is not a parasite. It is not a separate organism. It is brought about the sexual reproduction whereas a parasite infects the host. It’s different.

      “The embryo IS a potential life because without a willing host it will never come to term.” *headdesk*

      Coming to term has nothing to do with being alive. Tadpoles are alive, but they aren’t adult frogs. Larvae are alive, but they aren’t adult flies. Embryos are only one stage in human development. I am at one stage, my children another, my parents another. We are all humans; we are all alive.

    41. It is similar and you can disagree all you want. The fact is it needs a host to survive.

      To me the embryo IS infecting me since I view pregnancy as a disease.

    42. I’m sorry than we will have to be at an impasse. If you cannot acknowledge basic biological terms and instead hype up rhetoric, then we cannot conduct a discussion.

      Parasites and offspring are different things. Hosts and parents are different things. An it’s ontologically impossible for an embryo to infect a host since it can’t invade one. It doesn’t exist prior to conception whereas a parasite exists prior to infection. These are biological truths. Please do not distort the facts to suit your own agenda.

    43. I am not…
      If it needs a host it is a parasite. The embryo needs a host so therefore it is a parasite.

    44. Please look up the biological definition of “host” and “parasite.” Then look up the definition of “embryo” and “parent.” Otherwise we’re done here.

    45. I understand that to you a wittle embryo is precious and a pregnant woman is already a mother.

      To me she is not a mother unless she plans to birth the kid.
      The embryo is using her as its host to develop and it does fit 99% of the definition of a parasite. Would you feel better if I said it was similar to a parasite.

    46. I don’t take too kindly to condescending comments. I merely asked that you acknowledge biological terms correctly and use them correctly if you wished to continue a conversation. Instead you ramped up the rhetoric referring to pregnant women as “hosts” and embryos as “parasites.” Similarity again is a matter of subjective reasoning. The fact remains that embryos are not parasites.

      I tend to engage in abortion discussions using biological evidence and philosophical reasoning. I’m not interested in engaging in discussions filled with propaganda or slogans. If this is not how you prefer to conduct your conversations, than we can end the discussion now. My time is valuable. I don’t like wasting it.

    47. I agree and if you cannot see the similarities between an embryo and a parasite we really have nothing else to say to each other.

    48. May God’s graces find you. I will pray for you, your child, and your boyfriend. Pax Christi.

    49. “Do you think all children cause ruin, misery, and harm to their parents’ lives?”>>
      No because these parents WANT kids so they do not see kids as life ruining misery but they see the sleepless nights, being sick all the time, having your house a mess, having a screaming brat in public, not being able to go to a nice place for dinner, etc as a joy…

    50. Actually, not everyone who conceives a child generally wants a child. That’s why many children are placed for adoption. Some people don’t want a child but recognize that the child has a right to life, and give birth. Some decide to parent, and realize that having a child was not nearly as awful as they thought it would be. Some decide to place their children for adoption, and make other couples who do want children very happy. Then you would not have to have sleepless nights, etc.

      I am a parent – I have 5 children and one on the way. And yes, there are sleepless nights, messy house, tantrums, financial limitations, etc. But what you don’t seem to realize is that there are glorious compensations to those annoyances. I may have the occasional sleepless night, but I get snuggles with my kids too. They are occasionally sick, but we have fun snuggling on the couch and watching movies if they are. I may have a messy house, but I enjoy my childrens’ creative, imaginative, inquisitive playacting. They sometimes throw tantrums, but they more often give hugs and kisses and tell funny jokes and stories. Maybe I don’t often go to five-star restaurants, but I enjoy teaching my children how to prepare their own meals, and take pride in their accomplishments. And once they are grown, I will have plenty of time to enjoy my sleep, my health, my clean house, the silence, and dining at restaurants — but I’ll probably miss the chaos.

    51. The thing is adoption is an alternative to being a parent. It is NOT an alternative to the misery of pregnancy. There would be no benefits about being a breeding cow for some other woman. My life would be destroyed.

      If I want someone to snuggle with I have my boyfriend and my pets. I do not need a snot nosed, disease carrying child.
      I do not want to snuggle with a sick kid and watch some boring G rated movie. I’d rather stay disease free and watch something interesting.
      For you the sacrifices of having kids is worth it… for me it would be life ruining misery.

    52. Really? I’ve been pregnant 8 times (five births, two miscarriages, and my current pregnancy). It’s certainly not fun in many respects but it hasn’t destroyed my life. How can you make that judgement call if you’ve never been pregnant?

      And why does your desire to avoid (alleged) misery trump the right to life of another human being? Given that pregnancy is temporary and death is permanent, shouldn’t the right to life supersede the desire to avoid pregnancy (especially since one can avoid pregnancy by not engaging in the act that causes it)?

      I watch Lord of the Rings and Star Wars and The Avengers with my kids. Hardly boring G-rated movies. 🙂

    53. You WANT kids so the misery is worth it to you. You can put on a smile after spending hours throwing up and after you have only slept 4 hours in the past three days because the suffering is worth it to you since you are going to get something you want in the end.

      I was pregnant and I had an abortion. That short time I was pregnant was nothing but misery- and I was able to take stuff to help with the misery- all pregnant woman can do is suffer.

      The embryo has no right to life since one has to have a life before it can have a right to life.

    54. Oh, believe me, I don’t smile! I’ve needed anti-nausea medication (Zofran or similar) with all of my pregnancies. I’ve been in the ER twice due to severe vomiting, and I often lose 10-20 pounds in the first trimester. Yes, it is quite miserable. But my physical misery does not justify killing an innocent human being, especially when there is medication to help.

      I am sorry you did not get the medical help you needed to manage your nausea. Have you ever visited HelpHer.org? And I am sorry for the death of your child.

    55. You want the kids so the misery if worth it to you. I do not want kids so there is NOTHING about a pregnancy that makes it worth it to me.

      Also my “child” did not die. An embryo was aborted and it saved my life.
      An embryo is not fully alive since it needs a host to sustain its existence.

    56. A newborn needs an adult to sustain its existence. Are newborns not fully alive?

      What do you think of the Planned Parenthood quote I posted above? They disagree with you.

    57. ANY adult can care for the newborn… It does not require the same ne person to suffer endless misery to care for it.

      An embryo IS a potential developing human and if the host decides to bring it to term it will become an actual human. That is pretty much what PP said.

    58. Whether or not someone wants to care for a newborn is irrelevent to the question I asked. According to you, a human being who needs another person to sustain their existence is not a living being. A newborn needs another person to sustain their existence. Is a newborn a living being? By your definition, s/he is not.

      PP actually didn’t say what you are claiming. PP says that an embryo is a “living member of the species homo sapiens” [a living human being] which will become a self-sustaining member of the species (able to survive without help) if s/he does not die of natural causes, or if s/he is not killed. But humans do not become self-sustaining members of the species until they are teenagers at the very earliest.

    59. I don’t see that particular criterion included in the biological definition of a living human organism. Even PP disagrees. Do you have a source to back up your assertion?

    60. There is nothing immature about wanting a child free life. My response to
      these ridiculous things… skipped some

      Have a happier marriage.-NOPE… having a screaming brat talking up your time
      so you never have time for your spouse does not make a happier marriage.

      Pay less income taxes.-selfish much?

      Learn to share, and like it.-Learned it… don’t need my vagina ripped open to
      learn it again

      The ultimate diet plan: morning sickness and breastfeeding.-thanks but I’ll
      pass. I have will power to put the cookie down and go to the gym

      Enjoy snuggles on demand, around the clock.-got my dogs for that

      Cuteness abounds.-kids aren’t cute

      Disposable diapers. There. I said it.-waking up at all hours to change a
      poopy diaper- F that

      Park in the “stork” space at grocery stores.-I am not lazy I can walk

      Have an excuse to buy cool toys and cute little outfits.-Didn’t know you
      needed an excuse

      Free entertainment: kids are hilarious.-Not at all… in any way

      Have someone to help care for your pets.- I can do that myself

      But who needs pets? Kids are way cuter, and they last longer.-Nope pets are
      100% better than kids.

      Kids eat free at many restaurants.-and scream and throw stuff and ruin the
      meal for everyone else

      Children will eat and appreciate your failed cooking experiments.-RIGHT…..

      Burn calories: play with your kids.-got the gym for that

      Save money by not buying birth control.-Yeah I think BC is much cheaper than
      child birth and 18 years of misery

      Have sex without worrying about pregnancy. It’s fun.-I’m not worried about
      it there is abortion

      Ask anyone who has given birth: the pains of labor are worth it.-There is NO
      way having my vagina ripped open is worth it

      Pregnancy reduces menstrual cramps in subsequent periods.- dvil does this as
      well

      Not using birth control lowers your risk of ectopic pregnancy.-I’d have an
      abortion so I really don’t care

      Help raise the languishing birth rate.-not my concern

      Improved immune system. It’s a law of nature: Moms never get sick.- No they
      just have to suffer when sick… they can’t take time off

      Baby smiles.- Nothing cute about that

      Carrying a baby? Strangers will smile at you.- Nope

      Babies are also a great conversation starter.-Nope

      Live vicariously: remember that toy you never got as a child, but you’re too
      old to want it now? Let your kids try it out.- I can get that toy now without
      an annoying kid

      Job security: moms have it.- I’d rather have a job I enjoy than one that
      causes me endless misery

      Learn and believe that happiness really doesn’t come from material wealth…

      Marvel that 2 people can produce children that are better-looking than
      either parent. Heredity is a

      Experience the triumph of potty training.- yeah having to clean c rap off the
      walls for months… f that

      Perpetually late? You don’t even have to blame it on the kids. People will
      assume.- so you are inconsiderate because of kids… that’s awesome

      If you’ve never had a baby fall asleep on your chest, you just don’t know
      what you’re missing.- I do not care what I am missing… sounds disgusting to me

    61. Sad that you still think children are so awful…and there’s no need to resort to profanity. I never called you immature, but I must admit, it’s usually children I have to tell to watch the potty mouth.

      But you still won’t answer my question:

      Were you, indeed, this kind of child to your parents? I doubt it. If you weren’t this kind of influence on them, why assume a child is objectively a bad thing?

      Something to ponder….

    62. My parents WANTED kid…
      WHY can you not understand the difference between WANTED and UNWANTED.

    63. I do understand the difference between wanted and unwanted.
      What I do not understand is the level of hate you display towards children. Even folks I know who don’t want or use NFP to not have anymore kids don’t display the level of hatred towards children you have here.

      And I’m just wondering if you realize how much your ranting makes the author’s point:

      That a contraceptive mentality leads to a societal view that children are problems to be avoided rather than blessings to be celebrated.

    64. NFP is not BC… anyone using that is asking to get pregnant.

      My hatred is more towards pregnancy and the life ruining misery it causes…yes a child would ruin my life and everything good in it but I would never allow it to get that far.

      Kids ARE a problem to be avoided… they are not a blessing.

    65. But you were a blessing to your parents,no?
      NFP is actually more effective than ABC…and without the children-are-evil attitude that comes with it.

    66. Sigh…. I will try this again.
      My parents *****W A N T E D**** kids so yes I was a blessing to them. I ****N E V E R**** want kids so all a kid would bring me is endless misery.
      Also NFP is the WORST possible form of BC there is. I would much rather use something that actually works instead of being terrifed that I was going to get pregnant and need an abortion every time I had sex.

    67. *chuckle*
      Really? Let’s try having a little survey:
      HEY! ALL YOU MOMS USING NFP!!!!
      HOW MANY OF YOU ARE TERRIFIED YOU’RE GOING TO GET PREGNANT, EACH TIME YOU HAVE SEX?

      (Crickets…..)
      Uh-huh….

      I’m glad you have at least pulled back, from suggesting children are objectively evil.

      You never said before that you were a blessing to your folks. I think you were, but the way you talk about kids, I wonder if you realize it….

    68. Sigh… these people using NFP probably don’t mind if they get pregnant. For ME it would be the worst possible thing EVER.
      I want a child free life because for ME a child would bring me only sadness and resentment.

    69. *chuckle* so, you admit kids aren’t evil incarnate, then?

      Really? How many NFP Using folks do you know?

      We do care if we get pregnant…we just don’t see it as a life/career ender. 🙂

      NFP folks mind…the author notes somewhere on his blog that his wife had a nasty stroke last year- getting pregnant would not be good for them.

      Yet, they use NFP…no new kids.Not mentioned on his blog, ennaways…

      And, if you want a child-free life…you know what? Look at some of the stats I showed Phil D a while back.

      Divorce rates for contracepting families are 50%.
      NFP Divorce rates are *maybe* 3%, depending on which study you look at.
      And NFPers tend to value mariage, and…children, quite a bit.

      No one is saying you *HAVE* to get pregnant; but, if you want to avoid pregnancy, NFP is a better way in every way that matters to you or me. 🙂

    70. To ME kids are evil and bring nothing but misery.
      Half my family is Catholic and all used NFP… they all have a bunch of kids. I can’t imagine they would ever admit any of them was unwanted/unplanned but this has been the case with any Catholic family I know. They have a BUNCH of kids.

      NFP don’t divorce because the church says it is evil… not because they really still live each other.
      I do want to avoid pregnancy and that is why I will stick to my IUD. I trust something that works versus something that relies on something as foolish as me taking my temperature.

    71. Maybe we NFPers have kids because…NFP teaches you to value & love life?

      The difference b/w NFP and ABC is akin to the difference b/w losing weight through diet and exercise vs. making yourself throw up. One works with nature, the other against it.

      Interestingly enough, if you look at the stats (please do!), NFPing women also report more satisfaction with their sex lives, in part because necessary periods of celibacy require the couple to find non-gential means of showing affection (some times harder for husbands to do, but which many women appreciate)

      What’s fooling about taking your temperature, someone45? It’s a lot less hazarous to your health than an IUD: http://iudproblems.blogspot.com

      http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/investigations/thousands-of-women-complain-about-dangerous-complications-from-mirena-iud-birth-control

    72. To me having a kid would bring me endless misery because it would hold me back in life and cause me to NEVER be able to live my life how I want again. The endless insomnia, depression, and misery it would bring is not something I want.

      NFP DOESN’T work. Anyone who uses that as BC is just asking to get pregnant. People who use real BC know that if they want to avoid pregnancy they have to use something reliable and not just hope they are lucky.
      Taking my temperature as a way to decide if it is the right time to have sex is foolish. My IUD has never given me any problems and has worked great to prevent any unwanted pregnancies.

    73. Really? NFP Doesn’t work?
      (*chuckle*) have you looked at the studies?
      You’ve made a case why you don’t want to be pregnant or have a child, Someone 45. But you still haven’t explained how this makes a child evil, per se.

      Have you checked out the stats I posted earlier on the effectiveness of NFP vs. other forms. How ’bout you do that before you respond.
      Or, better yet: talk to folks here. 🙂

      I suspect that even if you did have serious issues re. the use of your IUD, you’d be unlikely at best to list them here.

      However, you once again make the author’s point about artificial birth control: In post after post, just as the author said,use of artificial contraception makes the ser & the society they live in view children as evil problems (one earlier poster likened them to cavities).

      Can you see how one leads to the other? If not, I can’t help you. But if you keep posting in the fashion to which I’ve been accustomed, I’ll wager you’ll keep making the point for the author more and more clearly.

    74. NFP doesn’t work well. I have looked at stats on BC methods- now I didn’t use an anti-choice website as you probably would want me to.
      There is nothing wrong with using BC… would you rather a woman not use BC and have an abortion if she gets pregnant because I can tell you know if I get pregnant I will abort and I’d rather use something reliable so I don’t have to worry about a pregnancy.

    75. There is something wrong with Birth Control that encourages neither birth nor control, and causes us to look at children like evil moppets intent on destroying our lives.

      *chuckle!* That’s like saying you won’t take a college exam, since it wrecks the party life of college.

      Neither ABC nor Abortion are acceptable; the former because…well, read the article. Abortion because you kill an innocent life.

      So, no false dichotomies, please please please [it rhymes, try it! 🙂 ]

    76. There is nothing wrong with BC that works as it is supposed to- preventing unwanted pregnancy.
      Unwanted kids are evil and will destroy my life.

    77. There is something wrong with A-BC, as it leads society to hate kids. As you keep demonstrating. 🙂

      Really? Was Beethoven evil? Did he destroy your life? 🙂
      Uh-huh…

    78. There is nothing wrong with a person using regular BC to prevent an unwanted pregnancy and Beethoven was no inside my body for nine months so I fail to see the comparison.

    79. IUDs and “Birth Conrol” pills cause abortions of pre-born children via preventing them from implanting in the uterus.
      Plus, as mentioned before (and which you repeatedly demonstrate….) it causes an attitude towards children that they are nefarious parasites bent on destroying your dreams and future. Rather than….

    80. Oh, and Bethoven was quite unwanted when his mother got pregnant. I sincerely hope you aren’t suggesting it only counts if it affects you directly….

    81. OMG… BC pills and IUDs PREVENT the “pre-born children” from implanting into their host… MEANING there is NO pregnancy. It works to prevent a pregnancy from happening.

      UNWANTED children will bring someone/a couple nothing but misery and there is nothing that will chnage that.

    82. A fertilized egg is a human being, someone45. It has its own genetic DNA code, which is why it can legally inherit property from the moment of its creation.

      Actually, there are a lot of children unwanted at pregnancy that bring a lot of joy to their parents….if you don’t know that, might I gently suggest you talk to folks about it…many of us were unwanted at the time of pregnancy, and went on to bring our parents a lot of happiness in the end. 🙂

      And, for thinking that an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy is the end of your world, might I suggest:

      http://jezebel.com/ten-advantages-to-an-unplanned-pregnancy-1447919118

      …I’m not, and still not debating that you ought to have kids. 🙂

      I am saying you’re wrong that kids are evil life destroyers. Wasn’t the case with Bethoven, me, you, or anyone one else. Life throws us curveballs; if we let the curveballs destroy us or make us bitter and angry, it says far more about us than the events themselves, no?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M83p7PTKfg

    83. Millions of fertilized eggs fail to implant every year. So why not be concerned about that?
      I can tell you an unwanted kid would bring me nothing but misery and a ruined life. I would resent that kid for taking everything from me.

      You do know unplanned and unwanted are 100% different from each other right?

    84. [smile*] As to the ‘millions’ of un-implanted zygotes (watch terminology, please) that naturally fail to implant: What is the difference between a child dying of natural causes vs. intentional action on the part of a parent?

      Did you read the article the original poster wrote, BTW? Or watch the piece I just posted?

      Also: Do you plan to write anything new, other than your own opinions? Really, I can keep doing this, but I wonder why you feel compelled to convince me, or feel repition alone of the same piece will do so.

      Yes, I understand the difference as you see it.

      I also know that when we see a child, that if a parent doesn’t want that sweet little guy or gal, it says more about the parent.

      If you engage in sexual activity, you must be prepared to possibly bring a child into the world. Many good parents will want them.

      I doubt the child really cares, though. For the article above, the issue is why artificial contraception is wrong: It [say it with me, everyone- 😉 ] creates an attitude towards kids which you keep displaying. That they are evil, and if you don’t want them at the time, they will necessarily will destroy your life.

      And both those thing simple aren’t so.

      Ask Geanna Gensen:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOWMmx6eBjU

      And please, I’d gently suggest you watch this and think a bit before you answer.

    85. No if you engage is sexual activity you do not have to be prepared to birth a child. Consent to sex is only consent to sex.

      BC is a good thing because it prevents millions of unwanted pregnancies and abortions every year… WHY can’t you see that?

    86. You may say that, but has that attitude brought more or less complications to our society as a result?

      Hint: more. Maury Povich would be out of a job if we still had the attitude of Marriage being the means to sexual activity.

      ….which is perhaps why the civilizations that are the most advanced morally said the best situation was to reserve sexual activity until:

      a) you were emotionally and financially able to raise a child, and
      b) reserve that activity to one partner of the opposite gender for life.
      Ie. “wait until you’re married.”
      🙂

      I can see how civilization has changed since a societal acceptance of Contraception…yes, it may prevent some pregnancies for some people. however:

      -have teen pregnancies gone down or up since the 50s, when “the pill” was introduced? Hint…aw, do even even hafta?
      -have the number of abortions gone down or up since ABC became widely accepted?

      …what you tout as the ultimate solution is, in reality, a short term solution which has led to a larger problem.

      Using ABC to stop pregnancies is like peeing on yourself when you’re cold in your sleeping bag on a camping trip; it’ll work for a bit, but in the end you’re just worse off in the long run. 🙂

    87. It doesn’t matter…. I view kids as life ruining misery and I have that right.

      I only have sex with one person but I will NEVER be willing to suffer the misery of pregnancy.
      Using real BC to stop pregnancies is what smart women do. Only a fool would have unprotected sex knowing they do not want to get pregnant.

    88. Yes, but to have a right to do something doesn’t mean you’re right in doing it, does it? 😉 (thank you, GK Chesterton!)

      I presume you consider yourself a ‘smart’ woman for only using artificial birth control, based upon your calling women who use NFP ‘fools’. So, tell me:

      -is every woman who uses NFP stupid? Be careful…

      NFP done right does not mean you are unprotected. It also means there is likely far less vitriol about the subject.
      Truly, someone45, I see quite a bit of anger and self-decalred hatred in your posts that I just don’t see in other women here like Foxfire, Mrs. Transacos and others who are quite intelligent and do use NFP.

    89. If a woman wants to be child free and sees kids as I do as life ruining misery they are fools for using NFP only.
      NFP is NOT BC. It is hoping you get luck every month and that you don’t miscalculate something.

      I would much rather use something I can trust.

    90. Really? Have you really looked at NFP?
      The author of the article (which I believe less and less that you’ve read) notes that via charting, etc. they have ‘stopped’ at seven children.

      So, there is no way to ‘miscalculate’ with artificial birth prevention? Be careful…all those millions of teen pregnancies we have now that we didn’t have before suggest otherwise…

      You can trust NFP far better than ABC. Not the least of which is because:

      a) it forces most couples to share in the process of family planning,

      b) you don’t end up putting a bunch of foreign chemicals into yourself that your body was never meant to have, and

      c) Even secular sites (you read the links I provided ,correct? No? hm…I wonder why not…?) note that NFP is just as if not MORE effective if used properly.

      d) you don’t end up hating children as a vaporous, demonic, ill-defined evil mass bent upon your life’s destruction.

      Nothing wrong with not wanting children. But I suspect that if a Catholic spoke about, say, people who paractice homosexuality with the vitriol I have see you use against children here, you’d suggest they were filled with hatred and had a very wrong-headed mindset on the subject.

      It’s not left to chance, someone45. Just drop by the Couple-to-Couple League’s site, and see. 🙂

    91. 7 children… yeah seems like that worked great for them. I doubt they would admit that some of those 7 were probably unwanted/unplanned.
      I would never trust my life with NFP… An unwanted pregnancy would destroy my life if I did not have an abortion and I will NOT risk my entire life with something so ridiculous.

      I will stick with my IUD since that is proven to be effective.

    92. Once again, you prove the author’s point: I would suggest that a contraceptive mentality has got you unable to consider that a family would *want* more than 1-2 or 3 kids, and would in fact not consider having kids a huge enough inconvenience such that they must adhere to a very rigid contraceptive ‘schedule’.

      Now, try this:

      You keep saying that a child would ‘destroy’ your life. What you really mean is that it would inconvenience your life, and you’d kill to keep that convenience.

      A child does not destroy your life. It alters it, but like any adventure, it is only an inconvenience *correctly* considered.

      I’ve yet to hear tales of a single case where a child actually ‘destroyed’ the life of it’s mom. Change doesn’t equal destruction…or don;t you think chang wis good? 🙂

      Oh, and try goggling “IUD- problems”. Quite a few less than you see with NFP, in truth…

    93. YES a child would destroy my life. I would NEVER be happy again and I would have nothing but misery to look forward to every single day.

      The way it would alter my life would NOT be for the better. It would be NOTHING but misery.

      I have not had ONE problem with my IUD. Not saying other women don’t but for me the only problem was that it hurt like h3ll putting it in.

      Now with NFP the anxiety and the money spent on pregnancy tests every month alone would make it not worth it.

    94. >>>YES a child would destroy my life. I would NEVER be happy again and I would have nothing but misery to look forward to every single day.
      <<<

      How do you know? 😉 I'm not sure I've ever met the parent who characterized parenthood in exactly that way. 🙂

      NFP doesn't bring anxiety. Not to those of us who prepare and know what we are doing. We don't need pregnancy tests each month, either.

      But maybe we're isolated…

      HEY! NFP USING MOMS!!! SHOUT OUT IF YOU HAFTA BUY PREGNANCY TESTS EACH MONTH!!!!

      Funny…I see a lot more anxiety among folks whose ABC fails.

      Did you try googling "IUD Problems", BTW? Just because you don't feel a problem doesn't mean one isn't there…

      Maybe trying NFP would help you break down the anger you display at children. On a serious note, it's very sad to see.

    95. I know what I want out of life and it is NOT the life that comes with having a kid.
      NFP would bring me anxiety since a pregnancy would destroy my life and I’d want to know as soon as possible so I can abort.

    96. …again, how do you know a child would destroy your life? Or anyone else’s? You keep using the language of child-as-agressor over and over again, but never explain why?

      Here’s a question: I heard once children have to be taught to hate. Who taught you to hate kids?

    97. …again, how do you know a child would destroy your life? Or anyone else’s? You keep using the language of child-as-agressor over and over again, but never explain why?

      Here’s a question: I heard once children have to be taught to hate. Who taught you to hate kids?

      Oh, and did you google “IUD Problems?” 🙂

    98. Because I want A CHILD FREE LIFE meaning NO kids in it…

      And no I didn’t google IUD problems my doctor went over all the potential problems with me. I’ll still take that over NFP.

    99. There is nothing wrong with wanting a child free life. St. Francis of Assis wanted that.
      There is something wrong with displaying hatred towards children, seeing them as destroyers rather than blessings.

      So, doctors are never wrong, then?
      If I asked you, I bet you’d say you like to think for yourself…is that true? 🙂

    100. Every child is a blessing to the whole of the world. If you cannot see that, perhaps you need to look further than how this would affect you alone…

    101. No an unwanted and unloved child is in no way a blessing to the woman forced to suffer the misery of gestational slavery…
      All it does is destroy her life.

    102. I do not care what OTHER women do or feel about their pregnancy.
      All I care about that is FOR ME the misery of pregnancy would destroy my life and would be gestational slavery.

    103. But if it isn’t slavery for them, it isn’t for you, either.
      If children aren’t evil for them, they aren’t for you either.
      If you weren’t evil for your parents, you wouldn’t be evil for them either.
      The goodness or badness of you or a child doesn’t depend on what another thinks of them.
      It’s innate to them.
      You aren’t good or bad based upon what others think of you. Niether is a child.

    104. No it is slavery for me because it would be the forced use of my body without my consent and all I would get is endless misery. To me a child would be bad bc it would leave me with no reason to live

    105. If you consent to sex, you consent to having yourself inhabited, my dear. 🙂

      Just as if a man consents to sex, he de facto consents to (at the very least) opening his wallet until his child turns 18. 🙂

      Again, thank you for illustrating the point: That using artificial birth control causes a societal and individual disdain for children.
      It hits some more than others.
      BTW: You never told me who taught you this kind of hate- since (I’ve heard tell) people have to be taught to hate….

    106. Nope consent to sex is only consent to sex not to the misery of pregnancy.
      The is nothing wrong with not wanting kids and it is beyond disgusting that you think there is something wrong with it.

    107. What is the biological purpose of sexual activity, someone45? 🙂

      Also, I have repeated many times that there was nothing inherently wrong with wanting a childless life; St. Claire, St. Teresa Liseaux, and St. Teresa of Avila and many other beautiful women Saints wanted a life without children.

      There is a large difference between them and yourself, however: These women didn’t want childless lives because they hated children and thought their lives would be destroyed by children. They only wanted a life of holiness and loving God more than that.

      So, there’s nothing wrong with wanting a childless life, per se.

      There IS something wrong with having a hatred of children, which you display time & again, and believing they would destroy your life.

      But don’t take my word for it…ask another woman:

      http://cnt.winkal.com/51775588e4b09abbc6d8ca4b/XgLc_700.jpg

      PS: Please read my responses before you fire off yours. Repeating yourself isn’t winning any hearts or minds, and (as I’ve stated before) if you keep on acting as if you don’t know what I’m truly saying, you make your point weaker and your argument sillier.

    108. I do not care what the “biological” purpose of sex is. I do not EVER want kids so for me the purpose of sex is to bond with my man and do something pleasurable.

      It is also child free life not child less. Child less sounds as if something is missing.

      What you are truly saying to me is that a woman should be punished with a kid if her BC fails and any person who doesn’t love babies is evil and there is something wrong with them

    109. …but, if asked, I bet you’d say you believe in Science over religion. Do you only believe in /care about science when it’s convenient for you?

      BTW, you didn’t answer the question: I know what you want to the betrue. But what is the biological purpose of sex?Why did you dodge the question?

      Childless only sounds like something is missing….to you. What does that say about you & your worldview, I wonder?

      I never said a child is a punishment…you just did, and once again showed the author is right re. what a contraceptive mentality does to one’s outlook.

      Punishment? *chuckle* uh huh…that’s a sad one…..

      https://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/obamapunishmentposter.jpg

      Really? really? *sigh!*

    110. A unwanted child and the misery it would bring and the misery of pregnancy would be a life ruining punishment. I deserve better.

    111. No one taught me to think that way. It is just how I have always felt. They are loud, annoying, and would destroy my life.

    112. *chuckle* Uh huh.
      But I thought children had to be *taught* to hate.
      Even as a little girl you hated babies and thought they were evil?
      Seriously: Who taught you to hate children? Folks? TV? College prof?
      Moreover: Who taught you they were punishments rather than treasures?

    113. When I was a little girl I didn’t “hate” babies but I didn’t really want to be around them I thought they were loud and annoying and messy.
      The thing that thought me that a pregnancy/kid would be a punishment is the fact that I want a child free life and I KNOW that a life with a kid would leave me with nothing but resentment and misery.

      And I know I pregnancy would leave me with nothing but misery and depression.

    114. What you have given is a good reason for you to remain childless; you have not given a good reason for ABC to be morally right for anyone, since “I want it and it’s easier!” really isn’t a good justification for anything…

    115. NFP is ‘real’ in every way that matters, since it involves actual birth and actual control.
      Artifical, by definition, ain’t the real thing, baby. So ABC ain’t the real thing.

      Have abortions gone up or down in number since the invention of the pill?

    116. You are right NFP involves a lot of births… not to sure about the control part.
      My IUD is MUCH better than NFP because it allows me the freedom to enjoy sex without the fear of the misery of pregnancy.

    117. Really? I thought you said it hurt like anything when it was implanted.

      Plus: google “IUD problems”
      Don’t think any thing like this hits with NFP…

      “One of the most dangerous side effects of Mirena (brand IUD) occurs when the device migrates from its normal position in the uterus. Despite the fact that Bayer claims this is a rare occurrence with Mirena, a study published by the Department of Radiology at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center found that this is a “frequently encountered complication.” When the IUD migrates, it can perforate the uterus and enter the abdominal cavity, pelvis, bladder or blood vessels. It can cause pain, infection, and damage to intestines and other nearby organs. This is a serious condition and requires surgery to correct. In some cases, emergency surgery is necessary to prevent further damage.

      In order to locate the device, radiologists use an ultrasound or X-ray. In some cases, women have had to undergo several surgeries because the device is difficult to locate and remove. The risk of perforation of the uterus is also increased in women who use Mirena immediately after delivering a child, and the risk is elevated for at least 6 months after delivery.

      Other serious side effects can include:Device expulsion. The device may also be spontaneously expelled from the body. During this time, the woman is unprotected from pregnancy. This occurs in about 6 percent of Mirena users. Some symptoms of a possible device expulsion include cramping, bleeding or spotting, pain during sexual intercourse, lengthened or absent device strings. Women who have never given birth are at higher risk for device expulsion.Pregnancy complications. If a woman becomes pregnant with Mirena, doctors recommend surgically removing the zygote immediately. Otherwise, the patient can experience a septic abortion, a condition in which the uterus becomes septic, endangering both the patient and the pregnancy. Mirena can also cause miscarriage, premature delivery and sepsis.Ectopic pregnancy. Of the women who become pregnant while using Mirena, half are ectopic pregnancies, which occur when an egg becomes fertilized outside of the uterus. It is often referred to as a “tubal pregnancy,” since it commonly occurs within one of the fallopian tubes. An ectopic pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. Women who have ectopic pregnancies often undergo surgery to remove the fertilized egg (zygote) and may become infertile.Pelvic inflammatory disease. A bacterial infection that affects the female reproductive system can often result in pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). PID can cause infertility by damaging the uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes. This condition can occur within three weeks after insertion of Mirena. The FDA warns that women with a history of PID should avoid Mirena and all IUDs.

      In addition, Mirena has common side effects that can occur, including:

      Acne

      Weight change

      Nausea

      Mood changes

      Breast tenderness

      Vaginal discharge

      Abnormal bleeding patterns….”

      …and that’s just ONE brand of IUD.

      Plus, I don’t know any NFPers who grow to hate children and see them as adversaries to a happy life.

      NFP teaches you to value children, even if you are childless at the time.

      But don’t trust just me that ABC changes your view of kids…it changes your view of sexuality to some darker, too:

      ““The common characteristic of all perversions… is that they have abandoned reproduction as their aim. We term sexual activity perverse when it has renounced the aim of reproduction and follows the pursuit of pleasure as an independent goal. And so you realize that the turning point in the development of sexual life lies in its subjugation to the purpose of reproduction. Everything this side of the turning point, everything that has given up this purpose and serves the pursuit of pleasure alone, must carry the term “perverse” and as such be regarded with contempt.” [Freud, A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. New York, Boni and Liveright, 1920, p. 273]”

      ….or are you gonna tell Freud is wrong, too? Be careful…..

      🙂 Whatchoo got next, beside unverifiable personal testimony?

    118. Yes it hurt when it was put in BUT I know that having my vagina ripped open during child birth would hurt 10000 times worse. Plus the IUD only took a few minutes. Child birth would be hours of pain and humiliation.
      NFP teaches you that a woman’s job is to pop out babies and if she doesn’t want to do that she is “broken”

      I think I will go with my personal experience… not the ideas of anti-choice woman haters who think all pregnancies are a blessing even when it destroys the life of the woman.

    119. >NFP teaches you that a woman’s job is to pop out babies and if she doesn’t want to do that she is “broken”

      Or is this just another inaccuracy brought on by….unverifiable personal testimony?

      Uh huh….

      But do you get the payoff from an IUD’s pain that a mom gets from hers?

    120. Anti-choicers are the ones who think a woman;s job is to pop out babies because you think any pregnancy should be carried to term. You do not care how much it might destroy the life of the pregnant woman.

      I get the payoff of a child free life and worry free sex from my IUD and if I was a mom all I would get is misery and a ruined life for my pain of having my vagina ripped open.

    121. Really? Pro-lifers think that? Source? Poop? Nope…never heard that one. 🙂

      Yes, human beings have for most of human history agreed that all human life deserves protection and respect from the moment of its conception to its natural end…but calling me ‘anti-choice’ is unfair. I am against the choice of sucking and dismembering a child into pieces and having it dumped into a sink, yes.

      Pro-choice choices begin prior to conception. As I tell my children all the time: if you choose the behavior, you choose the results of that behavior.

      And you don’t have the right to choose if I live or die, or a baby with its own DNA lives or dies, based upon what would be convenient for you at the moment.

      You may choose a childless life, but a child would not ruin your life, someone45, no matter what lies have been fed to you. I’ve yet to hear any pro-life NFPer say a child wasn’t a challenge, but I’ve also never heard them say their child ruined their life.

      I would again posit that the animus you display towards children is not a product of logic and cool-headed rationality, but instead the result of exposure to the mindset that necessarily results from being in a contraceptive/abortative culture, be in through sitcom watching or spending too much time in university coffee shops.

      But maybe you should ask a woman’s opinion, once again, who dealt with her share of crisis pregnancies, and still spoke out against abortion and contraception….

      https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/65/53/83/6553837812f754a607ecef82e1b78d98.jpg

    122. You are anti-choice because you think the only choice for an unwanted pregnancy is gestational slavery.
      Yes a child would destroy my life and everything good in it. I would have NOTHING but misery, resentment, and sadness to look forward to everyday.

      BTW putting a picture of a baby is not going to do anything to change my mind…
      All I need to do is go to dinner and have some screaming brat yell the entire time to be reminded of one of the many reasons as to why I do not want kids.

    123. *Chuckle* so, because I believe the baby deserves a chance, you call me anti-choice?
      Whose choice are we really talking about here, and whose choices are truly being denied?
      Gestational slavery?
      Is a parent who raises a child a slave?
      No.
      They are a parent.
      And attempts to denigrate that fall flat. Even folks who consider themselves moderately pro-abortion choice think equating pregnancy with slavery is quite ridiculous.
      Again, I’d gently suggest you consider who is truly enslaved; is it the girl who is carrying the child to term (hint: no), or the person so addicted to pleasure that they will equate children with evil and money with good?

      Don’t like baby pics….? Think kids are evil? Think pregnancy is slavery?….

    124. No because you think an embryo is more valuable than its host I think you are anti-choice.
      Gestational slavery= the forced use of a woman’s body and all she gets from it is misery and suffering.
      And I have seen MANY people call forced pregnancy gestational slavery.
      And yes a kid would destroy my life and only bring me misery. Why can’t you understand that.

    125. Sad that you would refer to both baby and mother using cold, clinical, biological terms instead of who they are: Baby and Mother.

      It is not forced; if, (for example), a woman chooses to have sex, she chooses the results of that action as well.

      Your attempt to slander/redefine pregnancy from a positive to a negative suffers from an analogy that uses faulty logic. it’s akin to suggesting you are ‘forced’ to accept a paycheck after choosing to work at your job all week. gah?

      I’m sure you have heard others refer pregnancy as slavery, someone45. Might I posit that many, nay, perhaps the majority of them have been taught by those with tenured positions at our state universities, which today have thick and deserved reputations for being divorced from reality.

      I understand what you say, Sadly, I wonder why you have such a degree of venom towards a child, compared to, say, Catholic saints who realized their vocation involved being childless.

      Among women like St. Claire, St. Teresa of Avila, or others, we see an acceptance & embracing of their vocations as involving childlessness. However, none display the vitriol towards children you show time and again.

      I also find it interesting that you feel compelled to justify yourself time and again to me and others here. Have you examined your conscience lately? Perhaps the root lies there?
      Not trying to set you off, but just suggesting.

    126. Why should I refer to the woman as something besides host to the ZEF? She is its host…

      A child would only bring me a life of misery and sadness and it is disgusting that you have a problem with that.

    127. It is sad that you would refer to both a mother and child in terms so limiting that they dehumanize them in this way.

      Indeed, to refer to a pre born child as no more than an ’embryo’ and a mother as a ‘host’ reduces both to mere biological, plant like functions. I would hope someone as conscious as you claim to be on the power of words would be more sensitive.

      Or, is it okay to dehumanize children and mothers, if they do not fit a particular agenda?

      I’ve no issue with you choosing to be childless; as I’ve said, many Saints did that. What I have is an issue with the level of animus you display towards children, and your apparent inability to see how it is connected with the contraceptive mentality we see displayed today, both with you specifically and in society, generally. .

    128. A pregnant woman IS a host to the embryo/fetus. It is the truth and you can deny it but since it is using her body to sustain its existence she is its host.

      Also a pregnant woman is not a mother unless she plans to carry the pregnancy to term or she already has a kid.

      There is nothing at all wrong with how I view pregnancy and children. It is a perfectly valid point of view and I know many people who feel the same. Children are not the perfect little precious angels that you think they are.

    129. I’m glad you have at least come around to calling a mother a woman, instead of using vocab designed to reduce her and her child to something out of a high school biology quiz. 🙂 It is wrong because it is incomplete and leaves out the most imprint aspects of the human person. It’s akin to suggesting you are nothing more than a pile of DNA, or like your unfair and erroneous claim that pro-lifers (over half of whom are women) view women as nothing more than baby-excretors.

      Please check the definition of mother; the child in her is a separate individual, legally, biologically, spiritually. Unless you want to insist you are your mom. 🙂

      The humanity of the child does not depend upon the wishes of the person who has power over them, nor their location. If that were the case, Slavery and Nazi Eugenics would be fine, no? Both involved losing their lives if those in power didn’t like them, and the victims were in a geographic location (Germany, the womb, Antebellum Alabama) for them to have power over them.

      …I never said they were perfect little angels. You are, once again, using fallacious logic to make your point; this time the error is known as the Straw Man, since you are trying to make a false image of my argument that is easy to knock down.

      There is nothing wrong with viewing children as less than angels. The Bible itself notes this. (Psalm 8:5, Heb 2:7). There is something wrong with thinking they are inherently evil, or insisting you have clairvoyance enough to know they would cause your life to utterly fall apart, when it has not done so to virtually every other mother around.

      There are, of course, exceptions. However, someone45, you appear to be an intelligent person whose thinking has got turned in the very wrong direction at some point in your life, from a mere wish to life a life without children to viciousness towards them, and continued near-obessive arguing with folks like me, who disagree that children are career-and-life-enders.

    130. Children are not “inherently evil” but since I do not want a child the misery it would cause my life would make my life worth nothing and leave me with nothing to live for.

      For me since I do not want to be a mother EVER it would cause my life to fall apart.

    131. I am glad you have stopped referring to children as evil. 🙂
      I am glad you now state children are not inherently evil, as well. 🙂

      I also am glad that you now refer to issues regarding children as being particular to yourself, rather than endemic to children as a whole group. 🙂

      And, for the record, after sparring with you, I would also like to state that I don’t believe for a second that motherhood would destroy you, even if it did put a crimp in your plans. You strike me as a tad stronger than that, someone45. 🙂

      God bless you,
      JDM

    132. I have always felt that my view of children is my own and not how everyone views kids, pregnancy, and motherhood. I know my views are very different than the majority of the population.

    133. I think you will be awful lonely if you get to live to old age, you really are omitting a beautiful gift from your life by not wanting children

    134. 18patrioticfamily22

      You keep referring to “gestational slavery” which has me ROFL. Where you got this ludicrous phrase I can only imagine–from feminists or other addled liberals. It is gestational glory to bear a living soul and raise that child to know and love God and so contribute to a better world. I have borne five…with NO pain and only wish I had given life to twice as many. They are a blessing to me and to our world. I’m so sorry you are unable to see it do the same. If you were less centered on SELF, perhaps you could lose your fear and resentment. I will keep you in prayer and ask for you many blessings.

    135. The is NOTHING glorious about the disgusting misery of pregnancy and the humiliation of child birth.

      There is nothing at all that would be a blessing about my life being ruined by the misery of pregnancy.

    136. ” Every child is a blessing to the whole of the world.”

      Until we understand what makes little Hitlers et al. you should not make such a
      blanket statement.

    137. That says more what people do to twist blessings, rather than the blessings themselves.

      Can you really, in good conscience, hurt a child because of what they *might* do or turn out to be?

    138. Plus: If you have such an issue with blanket statements, I’m quite surprised you haven’t addressed the many, many anti-child blanket statements that someone45 has made.
      Or did I miss that? 🙂

    139. Not sure if the server is putting our responses down properly, but here goes again:

      I think the author has actually hit the point quite succinctly in the original article: That a contraceptive mentality causes us to see children as problems to be avoided, rather than blessings to be celebrated.

      An commentators here have made that point better than I ever could. Instead of seeing a child as an infinitely valuable masterpiece of God’s handiwork, pro-contraception folks have likened children to cavities, cancer, potential Hitlers, and life-destryoying (rather than life-affirming) events.

      I’ll have a nice day.
      I hope you have one to, and consider what’s been said here
      God grant you wisdom,
      Really.

    140. In actuality, I would suspect the point is made by the writer of this article quite well. It’s those who think pregnancy and children ought be likened to cavities, diseases, or truly life-destroying rather than life-enhancing events that have utterly missed the point of children themselves.

      I hope you have a nice day, and also think a bit on what’s been discussed.
      May God grant you wisdom,
      Really.

    141. I am not giving up sex for life just because YOU think its only purpose is to subject women to the life ruining misery of unwanted pregnancies.

    142. There is nothing inherently bad about wanting a child-free life. St. Francis of Assisi did, and had one.

      There is something wrong, however, with hating children, or seeing them as evil little Gremlins out to make your life miserable.

      So, Doctors are always right? And they never miss anything? Be careful….

    143. There is nothing wrong with viewing children as something that would bring me life ruining misery…

    144. But don’t take my word for it….is Lance Armstrong’s site be liable enough for ya? Took me 2 seconds on google…

      http://www.livestrong.com/article/210679-effectiveness-of-natural-family-planning-methods/

      “…modern NFP/FAM methods can work just as well at preventing pregnancy as “artificial“ contraceptives. This is true for NFP/FAM users in both the developed and developing worlds.”

      Is Livestrong sufficiently anti-anti-choice enough for you? 😉

      Choice…uh-huh…whose choice again? 😀

    145. Someone, children are a burden?
      Were you a burden?
      No.
      You, as a child, were a blessing. A blessing. And you are a blessing today.
      And anyone who didn’t recognize it, be they parent, sibling or teacher, was wrong. So wrong.
      Many things are a misery that are worth it in the end. And every cild is worth it. You, Me. Everyone who reads this. We all were worth it.

  3. Pingback: This Week’s Best in Catholic Apologetics | DavidLGray.INFO

  4. As indicated by Phil Dzialo and Bill S. this topic sends the Nay-Sayers into a rage. Contraception it the Holy Grail of Protestants.

  5. That’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve read lately, or ever. I would love to read some empirical data to back up this weird conclusion. And if you’re going to compare contraception with purging the two don’t compare. You would need to relate purging to abortion. This is yet another example of how religion tries to twist and contort facts in order to make the bible sound like anything other than an ancient book of superstitious nonsense.

    1. Evidently, you need to read more; your first statement suggests you really haven;t read much in the way of Catholic thought. Odd, considering a) Aquinas was saying this as far back as the middle ages, aka the Ages of Faith, b) You’re reading Catholic stand.

      How do you get empirical data to prove a societal trend in belief? Tell you what: visit a college campus today:

      http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/19896/

      …apparently, more accept post-birth killing of kids today than before.

      However, I have the feeling from your tone that I could show you a ton of stats, and you’d hold your position for the reasons the author outlined in the article.

      Of course, I could be wrong.
      But I doubt it. 🙂

  6. We’ve taken all the consequences away from the crowding of our teeth, of bacterial infections, of falls, wounds, and old age. Next time the author has a cavity, he should let that bacteria complete its “biological purpose” and let it tunnel its way through to the soft bloody inside of the tooth. Then just kick back and wait for a fatal infection to spread to his brain. That is, if he wants to do it the “natural” way.

    1. *chuckle* so, you’re comparing children to cavities?

      I think you just made the author’s point for him, mate……

  7. My whole take: If you don’t like contraception, don’t use it. Other people using it is none of anyone else’s business.

    1. It is, however, my business if it affects the culture I live in.
      Euthanasia is the most recent expression of the cultural malaise that has resulted from acceptance of contraception. This was, sadly, predicted by Malcom Muggeridge in his seminal essay “The Slippery Slope”, long before they began euthanizing infants and the elderly in Europe and America.
      Put another way: If you don’t like the local factory putting goop into the local river, quit complaining. You can, after all, drink bottled water. It’s none of your business what another business chooses to put into the water, after all.

    2. Oh come now….the “slippery slope: is by definition an epistemological FALLACY. The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.

    3. …it may be named as a fallacy, but hasn’t his prediction come true?

      Think so….Heard about what they do in Oregon? In Denmark to Children? Sounds like Euthanasia to me….

      And Muggeridge was predicting it back in the 70s.

      *sigh!*

    4. My whole take: If you don’t like contraception, don’t use it. Other people using it is none of anyone else’s business.

      My whole take: if you don’t like paedophilia don’t do it. Other people doing it is none of anyone’s business.

  8. Onan’s sin had two schools of Patristic thought: Augustine said it was contraception that was the sin. Jerome said it was offending the Liverate obligation to procreate in your dead brother’s
    name with his widow. They were both incorrect. The sin was much greater than either of those.
    Onan was risking by coitus interruptus…the non appearance of Christ ( the greatest objective sacrilege even if unwitting like Uzzah touching the ark to steady it) since Christ was destined to come from the house of Judah…which at that pivotal time was only Er, Onan, Shelah, and the father, Judah.
    Levitical law (after Onan) says that in an emission of male seed like nocturnal emission, the seed must land on cotton or leather…not dirt. Augustine neglects that, neglects that Christ must come from one of these four men, neglects that throughout the Bible, God kills lone individuals or several only for sacrilege not sex or gluttony or carnal sins. God kills Uzzah for touching the Ark…sacrilege. God kills the sons of Heli for abusing the priesthood…sacrilege. God kills Achan for stealing the gold which was herem to God….sacrilege. God kills Herod in Acts 12 for accepting the crowd calling him god….sacrilege. God kills Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit…sacrilege. God kills the descendants of Jeconiah for not greeting the ark…sacrilege. God kills David’s son for David’s murder of Uriah, a non Jew, who became sacred to God by refusing to leave the ark as long as it did not have a home….sacrilege.
    Augustine had much sexual history prior to converting…none of it licit. Aquinas spoke of ” the
    remnants of sin”… strong tendencies to sins already foregiven. A contemporary of Augustine wrote that
    Augustine would never be alone with one woman….even his relatives. Jerome had many female
    friends and thus different continence in this area so that he didn’t see sex in the Onan passage even though Jerome was against contraception.
    We undermind the spiritual Christ aspect of the Onan passage when we follow him into seeing it
    as sex. The NAB unlike some older translations says that Onan spilled his seed “WHENEVER” he went
    in to Tamar for relations. Ergo….God did not kill Onan all the previous times to the last. Ergo God saw as wicked the whole orientation of never having a child and Tamar could not try with the next son unless God killed Onan also…so that she could try with the only remaining brother…Shelah who feared gojng near her so she disguised herself as a prostitute and seduces Judah the father andnprocreates the ancestor of Christ…Perez. Why didn’t God kill Tamar for incest and Judah for fornication in the very same story…..because God doesn’t kill for sexual sins but for sacrilege only when it is lone individuals
    or several.

    1. Don’t forget Adam and Eve. He threw them out of paradise after they partook of the fruit of her womb, then covered themselves in shame, then she had to birth the first murderer. Sex is death. It is the only reason we die; albeit it is a far more complicated reason for why we live.

    2. Au contraire. The fruit was not of the womb. The fruit was of a forbidden tree. It was not sexuality, but disobedience that caused them to be expelled from the garden. Please double check. 🙂

    3. au double contraire, the allegory is crystal clear. You are going to die – as God
      warned adam and eve – because of sex. There is absolutely no denying that
      reality. You die because you are born of carnal knowledge. It’s nothing to be
      ashamed about JD.

    4. …I can;t change your belief, but if you want God;s word on the subject, it’s sin, not sex, that kills us. The order to be Fruitful and multiply was given ‘way before Adam and Eve disobeyed….

    5. au double contraire, the allegory is crystal clear. You are going to die – as God warned adam and eve – because of sex. There is absolutely no denying that reality. You die because you are born of carnal knowledge. It’s nothing to be ashamed about JD.

      Wrong, and double wrong.
      Read the text again. The punishment of death comes from disobeying the command. After all, during the creation account, God says that everything he created was good. Therefore that would include the TKGE. So what makes their action bad was not the tree itself but the fact that it was forbidden.

    6. Marc, it’s an allegory – a story that tells a story. You can’t base your concrete
      belief on such a complex abstract.. In my Douay bible, chap 1 and 2 of Genesis present an enigma of such proportion that no sane person would try to unravel it never mind a bunch of ancient know it alls who were coming out from an age of human sacrifice and barbaric lives. In chap 1 God creates everything from light to animals. Then God says ” let us make mankind in OUR image ( the essence of the Trinity ) then God says ” Be fruitful and multiply.” BEFORE He creates man out of the dust to make him a living being which is in Chap 2. Then He places Adam in the garden and tells HIM about the tree and how eating it is death. Then He creates Eve, Adam’s “helper” to till the soil and the chapter ends with them being naked but without shame. After the fall God makes clothes for them – shame, shame – then makes a very runic statement. ” Indeed ! the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil ! And now perhaps he will put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and live forever !”
      Then, and for this reason, He expells them. Now please, sir, I cannot argue
      on this subject any more with you. If you can’t look at your parents and see
      that your birth will result in your death then you are a theo-Neaderthal.

    7. Marc, it’s an allegory – a story that tells a story. You can’t base a concrete
      belief on such a complex abstract. In my Douay bible, chap 1 and 2 of Genesis present an enigma of such proportion that no sane person would try to unravel it never mind a bunch of ancient know it alls who were coming out from an age of human sacrifice and barbaric lives

      And yet here you are 21st century man concluding from all this that ” You are going to die – as God warned adam and eve – because of sex.

      There is no exegesis on Gen 3 that is more ridiculous than that.

      They were told to go forth and multiply. How do you suppose they were expected to do that? By cloning themselves?

      Then God says ” let us make mankind in OUR image ( the essence of the Trinity ) then God says ” Be fruitful and multiply.” BEFORE He creates man out of the dust to make him a living being which is in Chap 2

      Well isn’t that dumb? He tells them to go and multiply BEFORE they were alive to do that? You think God is that unreasonable that he would command a non-living image of His to be fruitful and multiply BEFORE they were living beings? Were these non-living beings able to hear at all his commands?
      Listen. Gen 2 is a DIFFERENT account of creation to Gen 1 and NOT a continuation of Gen 1.

    8. Marc, the metaphor is this: The Garden is the body, the Tree are the genitals
      in the middle of the Garden (body) the knowledge of good and evil is the loss
      of inncense due to carnal knowledge. The death is our mortality. Don’t make
      it any more complicated than that. And They did kick them out because of the
      chance for immortality if they stayed around and found that other tree – now
      that’s something to investigate.

    9. Marc, the metaphor is this: The Garden is the body, the Tree are the genitals in the middle of the Garden (body) the knowledge of good and evil is the loss of inncense due to carnal knowledge. The death is our mortality. Don’t make it any more complicated than that. And They did kick them out because of the chance for immortality if they stayed around and found that other tree – now that’s something to investigate.

      Sorry but your exegesis and metaphor is completely sick. I don’t know where you get these ideas but they are products of a fevered imagination.

    10. From religions older than Christianity and still viable. Of course, you have to
      study outside your comfort zone – no more replys Marc, you’re hopeless,

    11. From religions older than Christianity and still viable. Of course, you have to study outside your comfort zone – no more replys Marc, you’re hopeless,

      James, this response is incredibly, terribly, painfully dumb.
      You are talking about a Judeo-Christian book and you are looking at it from a pagan lens?
      You’ve obviously gone beyond your comfort zone and gone roller blading on a very busy highway.

    12. God commanded them to “Be fruitful and multiply.” Far from forbidding them from having sex, God encouraged them have sex and have lots of kids.

    13. And they did, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and
      a hundred other strains in-between. But I digress, “Don’t forget … .”

    14. We undermind the spiritual Christ aspect of the Onan passage when we follow him into seeing it as sex. The NAB unlike some older translations says that Onan spilled his seed “WHENEVER” he went in to Tamar for relations.

      I have used the NAB text as support for this “contraceptive” mindset of Onan. However, the original Hebrew text does not say whenever but when.
      Also, the act of spilling was not merely spilling but a “ruining”, like destruction.
      While Christ is indeed in the line of Judah, and the contraception can be related to this, taking the passage on its own, it is clear that it is the contraception that resulted in his death.
      The sacrilege is not just in the fact that Christ is in this line, but that the seed is deemed precious hence the term “ruining” when it is wasted.

    15. “When” can mean whenever. If I say to you, “when I do my taxes, I do them fearfully.”…I could just as well have said whenever.
      It depends what the Jewish word meant at that exact time it was written….which an English translation may not capture. That’s why the aggregate of what I presented is more important especially the main argument. God does not intimately kill individuals in scripture for carnal sins but for sacrilege. The very ending infers that. God in the very same story does not kill Judah for going to what he thought was a prostitute and God does not kill Tamar for incest. Augustine’s past personal dramas ruined another passage for centuries and that is Christ’s words to Mary at Cana when she mentions the wine shortage. He literally says, “what to me and to you”. Read 9 different Emglish translations. They avoid his words and substitute what is called ” sense for sense” translating….all of which new words are rude on Christ’s part because translators followed Augustine’s view that Christ was partly putting Mary in her place as when Mary found Him teaching after He was lost when a boy. But Augustine missed a nuance. ” What to me and to you” is rare in scripture but occurs in 2 Kings 3 used by Eliseus just before he miraculously brings water to the wadi which water looks like red blood to the distant Moabites. Water that becomes red like blood or wine due to sun refraction. Ergo Christ most probably discussed that passage with Mary prior to Cana. Why? Because as Augustine alone pointed out, the very next chapter 2 Kings 4 has a veiled prophecy of Christ’s pain in the first descent of Eliseus on the dead Shunnamite boy wherein Eliseus matches his eyes and mouth and hands to the boy’s which requires a grown man to grimace as though in pain. Christ would have discussed such veiled prophecies for years with Mary because Simeon gave her anxiety in his….” and a sword hy own soul shall pierce”.
      Imagine Cana. Christ went public already….already by bringing the first disciples with Him to Cana which disciples He picked days before Cana. He has gone public and now Mary has anxiety because He has brought them into this very public event.
      She does not know what we know that Christ has several years between Cana and His passion. That is the HOUR. she is worried about. That is how Christ uses HOUR in John ( which Augustine missed). So Mary is worried but her conscience moved her anyway toward Christ to ask His miraculous help with the wine. Christ senses the worry in her voice and eyes and facial cues and He wants to bring her back to Eliseus producing water which became red which they may have discussed last night or last week by Providence. He does that by saying Eliseus’ rare phrase….” what to me and to you…woman…my HOUR ( to die) has not yet come”. Mary hears an immediate yes ( so do I ) which neither Augustine nor Chrysostom could explain with their off putting Christ theory ON WHICH 98% of English translations are based as they put rude words in Christ’s answer to Mary.
      Augustine thus contaminated two parts of the Bible with his personal baggage.
      His sex sins prejudiced how he and people saw Onan. His longstanding arguments with mom..Monica …prejudiced how Cana was translated into a reluctant son being rude to his mom. Falleness of the Fall…thus also affects scripture. ” In the sweat of your brow, you will eat your bread”.

    16. God does not intimately kill individuals in scripture for carnal sins but for sacrilege

      That may be true. But contraception is not a carnal sin as such. Onan was not killed for engaging in illicit and sinful sexual activities but for thwarting the possible result of sexual activity.

      God in the very same story does not kill Judah for going to what he thought was a prostitute and God does not kill Tamar for incest

      And Judah did not spill his seed.

      Augustine’s past personal dramas ruined another passage for centuries and that is Christ’s words to Mary at Cana when she mentions the wine shortage ……..In the sweat of your brow, you will eat your bread”.

      Sorry but I don’t see what bearing this has the issue at hand.

    17. The Cana incident shows that a Father(s) could distort a passage’s meaning for 15 centuries of Catholics….and lead them to see rudeness wherein Christ was actually assuring Mary which her immediate perception of a yes confirms.
      Augustine and Aquinas led married laity to believe they sinned venially if they asked…asked for sex without willing procreation explicitly and thus the Popes in allowing NFP like methods after 1852 explicitly had to deal with clergy objectors who followed those two men ( as did zealous laity for a total if 1300 years of mistaken guilt.)
      Contraception is the carnal level. The higher level is sacrilege. The sacrilege level is avoiding all children which Onan could have done with total abstinence…and God would still have killed him because A. Tamar only then could move on to Shelah and B. because Onan was risking the non appearance of the Messiah by coitus interruptus or hyperthetically abstinence ( a Messiah arrival which was never in doubt to God who used in the nick of time the sins of Judah and Tamar ( ” He has made all things even the evil man for the evil day”….” the well instructed son will be wise, he will employ the fool for his servant”). Just as Peter like Onan…pledged to stop anyone from killing Christ whereupon Christ rebuked Peter because he also was verging on stopping the perfect Sacrifice of the only real unblemished lamb.

    18. The Cana incident shows that a Father(s) could distort a passage’s meaning for 15 centuries of Catholics….

      Since I never referenced St Augustine, then it has no bearing on my reply. You’re the one who brought up St Augustine.

      Contraception is the carnal level

      No it isn’t. Sex is the carnal level. Contraception IS the sacrilege since for the Jews, the seed is sacred.

    19. Now I see why you have over 2000 replies on disque. You’re doing quickies. Maybe you post from work.
      The seed was not sacred to Jews. Read Leviticus 15:16–18 in the Douay Rheims which follows the Vulgate…if seed overflowed during intercourse, both people of the couple were unclean til evening…not stoned to death.
      My notes on Augustine have to do with the continuous point from all my posts…the first of which you replied to…I did not initiate our exchange. You may be posting from work so you copy and paste slivers of what the other person said and come up with fast answers while ignoring many of the points ( like abstinence could have killed Onan also ( maybe that’s what Er did to incur death from God)).
      We are done. Your quikie answers and sliver selections of what the other person writes is not acceptable to real worker writers. But many will love it….because the quick is the typical in the comboxes.

    20. The seed was not sacred to Jews. Read Leviticus 15:16–18 in the Douay Rheims which follows the Vulgate…if seed overflowed during intercourse, both people of the couple were unclean til evening…not stoned to death.

      I don’t think that argues against the sacredness of the seed convincingly because the blood makes one unclean and yet blood is regarded as sacred because they believed it to be the life force.

      My notes on Augustine have to do with the continuous point from all my posts…the first of which you replied to…I did not initiate our exchange.

      And your notes to counter Augustine and Jerome is based solely on your opinion which is the possible non-appearance of Christ. And while that may work on the allegorical level, as I pointed out, there is the immediate sense.
      What is worse is you are attributing some imagine psychological hang-ups on Augustine and blaming this imagined hang-ups for his exegesis.

      like abstinence could have killed Onan also

      Now that is pure speculation and only applicable if you think that he was killed for the levirate marriage. But as mentioned above, levirate marriage already had it’s own punishment.
      Furthermore, the case for the non-appearance of Christ diminishes when you consider that Judah had another son and the he could himself very well father another child. So your exegesis is stretching it too much.
      Then you go on and on about things that are totally unrelated to the topic and the only way you can attempt relevance is to somehow link it to Augustine’s supposed hang-ups.

    21. You were killed for shedding blood not for seed overflow.

      Gen.9: 6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
      by man shall his blood be shed,
      for God made man in his own image.”

      The text tells you explicitly that
      Shellah, the remaining son was not given to Tamar when he came of age. That’s why she did the disguise routine.
      Augustine tells you explicitly that he was oversexed. He dumped a ten year mistress mother of his son; Monica found him a too young respectable girl for whom he had to wait to marry until she came of age; he tells you that he couldn’t wait but went out and got another mistress.
      Readers….you will have to correct any future quickie responses to me. I’m gone. This is endless.

    22. You were killed for shedding blood not for seed overflow.

      But I was not talking about that.

      I said that the seed was sacred. You said it was not – citing Lev. So I replied back that such argumentation is not convincing because because the blood makes one unclean and yet blood is regarded as sacred because they believed it to be the life force. Basically, I am pointing out that the Levitical decree regarding uncleanness relating to emissions does not negate the sacredness of the seed.

      Shellah, the remaining son was not given to Tamar when he came of age.

      I know that. But at the point of Onan wasting his seed, that has not happened yet. And if you are going to argue that God knew that already, then God would also have known already that Judah will end up impregnating Tamar so there would not have been a need to kill Onan because of the possibility that Christ will not be born.
      This is my problem with your post. It is highly speculative and based on the imagined flaws and hang ups of a Church Father. You were in fact trying to read God’s mind and impute ideas to Him which is not supported by the Bible.

      Augustine’s being oversexed have no bearing on whether this text is about contraception or not. We can deduce that from the text itself without referring to St Augustine. So here again you have added another irrelevant item.

      And no. This is not a quickie response. There is no need to bring into my responses items that are irrelevant to the discussion.

  9. Pingback: Brittany Maynard Faces Mortality Differently - BigPulpit.com

  10. Very good article, but please bear in mind that the word “artificial” has nothing to do with the argument and use of word is often a source of confusion. Artificial birth control is not wrong because it’s artificial, but because all artificial birth control is either “contraceptive or abortifacient”. It’s better also to speak of fertility awareness methods (FAM), because the word natural (NFP) can also be a source of confusion.

    There’s also nothing wrong with using the phrase “birth control” as long as it’s understood to mean “births and self control” not “no births and no self control”.

    I’m pointing this out because the devil is all about confusing us. Been there, done that.

  11. My comment is not intended to take issue with the morality of contraception. It is evident to all that the position of the RCC is that contraception is immoral and thwarts the “natural”ends of the marital act (intercourse). It is also evident that the overwhelming majority of American RCC’s dismiss this teaching out of hand. These are simple facts, and I would doubt that the minds of anyone will be changed.

    My comments are directed to the vapid interpretation of the Genesis story of Onan as forming a contextual basis for any discussion about either masturbation or coitus interruptus (early withdrawal) as method of contraception.

    Most biblical scholars would agree with a statement that I often make: a text without a context is simply a pretext for having scripture say what you want….the story of Onan has nothing to do with sexual matters, but everything to do with a Judaic justification of levirate marriage and the failure to obey Yahweh in his proscription of levirate marriage.

    Levirate marriage is a type of marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother’s widow, and the widow is obliged to marry her deceased husband’s brother.

    Levirate marriage has been practiced by societies with a strong clan structure in which exogamous marriage (i.e., that outside the clan) was forbidden. It has been known in many societies around the world. The practice is similar to widow inheritance, where, for example, the deceased husband’s kin can dictate whom the widow may marry. Levirate marriage was the law of land in early Judaic history.

    Now in Genesis, after Onan’s brother Er was slain by God, his father Judah told him to fulfill his duty as a brother-in-law(levirate marriage) to Tamar, by giving her offspring. Tikva Frymer-Kensky explains that this could have substantial economic repercussions, with any son born deemed the heir of the deceased Er, and able to claim the firstborn’s double share of inheritance. However, if Er was childless, Onan would inherit as the oldest surviving son.

    When Onan had sex with Tamar, he withdrew before climax and “spilled his seed [or semen] on the ground”, since any child born would not legally be considered his heir. He disregarded the principle of a levirate union, so God slew him.

    According to some Biblical scholars who contextually read this passage, the description of Onan is an origin story or myth concerning fluctuations in the constituency of the tribe of Judah, with the death of Onan reflecting the dying out of a clan: Er and Onan are hence viewed as each being representative of a clan, with Onan possibly representing an Edomite clan named Onam, mentioned by an Edomite genealogy in Genesis.

    Also, it has been suggested that God’s anger was directed not at the sexual act, but at Onan’s disobedience by refusing to impregnate his brother’s widow.

    The text emphasizes the social and legal situation, with Judah explaining what Onan must do and why. A plain reading of the text is that Onan was killed because he refused to follow instructions. Scholars have argued that the secondary purpose of the narrative about Onan and Tamar, of which the description of Onan is a part, was to either assert the institution of levirate marriage, or present an aetiological myth for its origin; Onan’s role in the narrative is, thus, as the brother abusing his obligations by agreeing to sexual intercourse with his dead brother’s wife, but refusing to allow her to become pregnant as a result. Classical rabbinical apologists argued that this narrative describes the origin of levirate marriage. It says nothing about masturbation or contraception which were named after Onan…this is a story of failure to obey God’s commands about levirate marriage and clan continuation in Judea.

    Once again, a text without a context is a pretext for having a Biblical passage say what you choose it to say.

    1. suggestion: Check and see how many of the aforementioned interpretations you mention above, Catholic, protestant or rabbinical, were penned after 1930. I’ve noticed a distressing trend of ‘retro-theologizing’, or offering new interpretations of scripture which fit the zeitgeist, which are then passed off as being the ‘real’ meanings of the text.

      This presumes that all the commentators who referred to ‘Onanism’ were, indeed, wrong for centuries, and the folks you quote just managed to get it right. 🙂

      Please note how the good people at Catholic Answers note, succinctly, that Onan was not killed for failing to sire an heir; we later se in Deuteronomy that the punishment for such an act was public humiliation, not death:

      “The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19). ” [ http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control ]

      No, really. Go read it. 🙂

      Pax,
      JDM

    2. Shannon Marie Federoff

      Oh, goody. Someone beat me to it before I had to go all Deuteronomy on Phil. 😉

      Yes, the penalty for violating the Levirate Law was a humiliating smack with a sandal, not DEATH.

      So the story of Onan has EVERYTHING to do with “sexual matters.”

    3. Phil: The act of shutting out the biological purpose of sexuality (reproduction) and insisting only upon the pleasurable aspect of it is offensive to God to the point the writers/speaker of the Bible illustrated a man being killed by God for the offense.

      Generally, for most, this had the effect that a sign saying “Danger! Do not jump over this fence….cliffs, water, and sharks below” would have had.

      And our society’s been falling down that cliff for close to a century now.

    4. Obviously, we need to simply agree to disagree. Your interpretation of the story of Onan is that God punishes those who use contraception to thwart the natural purpose of sex.
      My interpretation, and that of rabbinical scholarship, is that Onan’s sin was that of greed, failure to enhance his clan, a failure to share an inheritance, etc…being a totally selfish human being….that narcissism was manifest in his refusal to obey the strictures of levirate marriage. Even is Onan didn’t spill his seed on the ground, God would have still have killed him because of a failure to obey the law of levirate marriage. Coitus interruptus was simply a means or method to not consummate. It was refusal…not the method of refusal that got him killed.
      Also, while procreation is one goal of intercourse; God also gave us bodies for pleasure and biologically pleasure in the mammal kingdom is ok in it’s own right. That is my opinion and could be debated until the cows come home…

    5. Regrettably, Phil, if it was just my opinion, we’d have no issue. We’d be more like Jewish scholars- “Two Jews, Three Opinions” is a proverb a friend of mine likes to use.

      But this is more than opinion.
      There are consistent interpretations on Onanism from the OT onwards, throughout the Early Church fathers, even the first protestant scholars all agreed on the plain meaning of the passage, which is that contraception is a sin.

      Please check Genesis 39…a fellow does exactly what you’re talking about, and…he’s not killed for it.

      Onan was.

      So, either God is arbitrary, or….the fashionable interpretation is wrong.

      Me, I know which one I’ll go with. 🙂

      Unfortunately, too many now *want* pleasure without the corresponding responsibility, and are willing to invent a great many new interpretations in order to accommodate those wants.

      Examples include:
      -cult leader David Berg claiming “everything you have is held in common” to include wives,
      -Joel Osteen equating God’s blessing with having lots of money, or….
      -that Onan was killed for disobeying an obscure marriage rule, rather than contracepting.

    6. Your examples are extremes and I would certainly concur about Berg and Osteen.
      As for sexuality and pleasure, perhaps all should read “Song of Songs” or “The Canticles” or “Song of Solomon”….now there is a piece of Judeo- Christian erotica; and no, I do not believe it is written as an allegory of God and Church. Wonder why no one reads this book of the Bible and why it isn’t prominent in liturgy? Pleasure, eroticism and sex and Scripture…now there is a great mix?

    7. Unfortunately, I think you are still operating under the stereotype that the Church is anti-sex.

      If it was anti-sex, then how come there are so many of them? 😉

      To divorce the pleasure of sexuality from its biological purpose is just as wrong in the other direction; Song of Solomon celebrates (among other things) married sexuality and properly-placed eros.

      Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps the young bridegroom is, indeed, engaging in Onanism. Perhaps his bride his joyfully unpackaging prophylactics in anticipation of their union…

      What? No?

      Hm….you mean, they are taking marital joy in one another, AND leaving their union open to life?

      And they don’t seem repressed at all, or dissatisfied?

      Imagine that! 😀

    8. Phil, I suggest YOU actually read the Song of Songs rather than apparently relying on what some “desperately trying to conform Christianity to modern secular culture” CLAIMS that it’s about. It’s a poem sung by a VIRGIN about her bridegroom-TO BE whom she has not yet married. (And yes like most passges of the Bible, in addition to its literal meaning it ALSO has allegorical and analogical meanings including in this case Christ and His Church. It is most certainly not “eroticism”. Nowhere does it promote the pursuit of sexual pleasure for its own sake nor in any way make even the slightest justification or defence for contraception!

      Millions of Christians have been reading, studying and meditating on this wonderful book of the Bible for 2000 years and it certainly is used and read from in Catholic liturgies, in fact more so than most of the books of the Old Testament, remarkably since it is fairly short.

    9. Remember that in ancient Israel, you were considered married as you were engaged, though the consummation usually waited a year.

    10. As for sexuality and pleasure, perhaps all should read “Song of Songs” or “The Canticles” or “Song of Solomon

      Indeed. And did any of these say one should contracept to enjoy even more fully this “erotica”.

    11. It is prominent in the liturgy- the Marriage Liturgy. It is both a celebration of holy marital relations and an allegory for the relationship between Christ and the Church. It’s not for nothing that He calls the Church His Bride after all.

    12. Obviously, we need to simply agree to disagree

      That statement is the most absurd fall back of people who are losing ground especially when what is under discussion has a right or wrong valence.

      Will you say to someone who is pro-paedophilia, oh well we just have to agree to disagree?

      My interpretation, and that of rabbinical scholarship, is that Onan’s sin was that of greed, failure to enhance his clan,

      It can’t be because as JDM above has mentioned, there was already a legal prescription on how one deals with that.

      Secondly, look at the text carefully.

      If you pay attention to the text (and no it is not pretext because you take the entire text into consideration), God decides to do it right after Onan spills his seed. Then it says: What he DID was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also
      Notice that it says that it is what he DID (spilling of his seed) and not what he DID NOT DO (give offspring for his brother) that what God found was wicked. Failure at a leverite marriage is not considered all that WICKED hence the very minor punishment. The leverite marriage is a cultural construct.
      The text also says that Onan did this “whenever” he had intercourse with Tamar. So obviously he has done this a few times and God did not strike him straight away. It was his persistent contraception that resulted in his death.

    13. It was refusal…not the method of refusal that got him killed.

      PRECISELY!!!! It was the REFUSAL. Refusal of what? Refusal of the possibility of a child and not the method of that refusal.
      Because after all, if consumation (i.e. intercourse) is the goal, he was already doing that. What he was preventing (REFUSING) is the completion of that intercourse.
      If condoms and the pill and the IUD were available then and he had used it, he would have gotten the same punishment.
      Finally you get it! Hip hip hurray.

    14. Most sins are rooted in covetousness. Onan indeed was greedy, and therefore pretended marriage to prevent his brother’s widow from having children. He was also lustful, so he pleasured himself with her, despite having no intention of conceiving a child with her.

    15. The fact that you view women as nothing but incubators who can do nothing in life but pop out babies is very offensive.

    16. …the fact that you are so ill-informed about Marc or the Church (or me?) isn’t offensive, but it is funny. 🙂
      Seriously, where’d I, or anyone else, for that matter, say women were incubators?

      I don’t recall anything in the Catechism to this effect…or Gabriel telling Mary she was blessed to be “an incubator’.

      Nope…she was blessed to be a mother.
      And being a mother is far, far more than being an incubator…wouldn’t you agree?

    17. You are entitled to you opinion, of course. But it seems that Sigmund Freud and many others over the past fifty centuries have had quite a bit to say to the contrary. Might I suggest: It would be better to read them, before such a summary judgement is passed?

    18. I just think it is silly to use the story of Onan to present a case against contraception as it is silly to use Sodom as evidence that God Hates Fags.

    19. …Then you might want to wonder why Catholics & protestants alike have been using it for the past 20 centuries…..could it be that your perceptions are wrong, rather than their reasoning?

    20. “Far more difficult than any question concerning the outward form of Genesis Rabba is that of deciding how much of its present contents is original material included in it, and how much of later addition. ” -wikipedia.

      Also, bear in mind: you have quoted a commentary, one which the Jews themselves did not consider definitive or representational of all Jewish thought on a text.

      As for your text proper: Tried googling it, nothing definitive came up, the way it does with a Biblical text.

      Your move. 🙂

    21. It is amusing to see people rely on the Old Testament to find answers to modern living. No. That is not where you find relevant opinions about sexual matters. No. Try modern psychology, as horrible as you might think it is. That is where we find the answers to how to live the good life. There is nothing the Old Testament has to say that should influence anyone’s attitides toward gay marriage, contraception or anything else that is addressed by much more reliable authorities.

    22. If you’re referring to the American Psychological Association, might I gently posit that since the 1970s it has been an organization far more concerned with achieving political points than it is actually learning the truth of human psychology.

      At least, that’ what their former president says:

      https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-president-of-apa-says-organization-controlled-by-gay-rights-movement

      I’m sorry that you apparently feel the Old Testament has nothing to teach us; have considered the positive impact that the 10 Commandments have had upon our lives?

      It is true the Christ did, in fact, do away with many OT laws. But I do not recall homosexual activity or onanism being among them.
      🙂

    23. I can see where you stand on modern issues confronting society. You just turn to your trusty Bible. That’s not the direction this world is going in (which I am sure you fully agree, except that I mean the world is progressing but you think it is regressing).

    24. Chris Blackington

      Modern psychology – good grief. Those idiots are the last people I would look to for guidance. I will stick with the immutable word of God

    25. Someone who chooses ancient scriptures (because he thinks they are “the Word of God”) over modern medicine, science, psychology, etc. is usually an obstructionist to real progress for society.

    26. …I’m not certain Chris was suggesting that. However, might I posit that:

      a) insisting on following the advice of a group allegedly medical in nature which has proven itself more political than medical is, itself, quite bad medicine

      b) More damage, death and suffering has been dealt and done in the name of progress in the last two centuries than was ever done in the name of God.

      c) Progress can be a tricky word, Bill. Far too many people have thought being progressive was a good thing, until they found they weren’t progressing towards the thing they thought they were. M. Danton in the French Revolution thought a few executions was a reasonable price to pay for progress….until his fellow traveller Robespierre decided Danton wasn’t progressive enough and cut off his head.

      My point: too many people think that we will only go ‘this far’, as the Anglicans thought contraception would only be used in extreme cases. I suspect if most of their voters saw it would lead to a societal ethos where the norm was a belief in infanticide, they’d become what you’d label ‘regressives’ quite quickly.

      Also: I challenge you to read Humane Vitae, esp paragraph 17. Please note how truly prescient the Church has been.

      Old advice, like that found in the bible, gets old for two reasons: 1) people keep benefitting from following it, and b) people keep suffering when they don’t, and eventually go back to it. Progress is realizing that something works, not just in finding something new and shiny to chase after. 🙂

    27. b) More damage, death and suffering has been dealt and done in the name of progress in the last two centuries than was ever done in the name of God.

      This would be amusing were this claim not so ubiquitously (mis)applied, and – even in cases where it is done so properly – I struggle to think of many things more facile.

      Also: I challenge you to read Humane Vitae, esp paragraph 17. Please note how truly prescient the Church has been.

      And I would challenge you to explain how birth control necessarily leads to:

      – “marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards”

      – “[causing men to] forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.”

    28. *chuckle!*

      I’m actually surprised you’re asking me to do this; most folks are aware of the uptick in marital infidelity in the past 60 years since “the pill” was developed.

      But if you want stats, here’s one:

      “a 1983 study found that 29 per­cent of mar­ried peo­ple under twenty-five had had an affair. By com­par­i­son, only 9 per­cent of spouses in the 1950s under the age of 25 had been involved in extra­mar­i­tal sex.”

      http://www.kellybonewell.com/psychology/adultery-just-the-statistics/

      …so, a 205 increase in 30 years….

      As for forgetting the reverence man is due a woman….

      http://magazines.vintagegaze.com/ads/grocery/alka-seltzer

      vs.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/advertising-fails-2012-worst-ads-for-women_n_2277773.html

      Ummmmmmm…..yeahhhhhhh……. 😉

      We don’t objectify women since then, nope. Nu-uh…..

      MTV? NebbaHurdUvId……
      😉

    29. I’m actually surprised you’re asking me to do this; most folks are aware of the uptick in marital infidelity in the past 60 years since “the pill” was developed.

      Perhaps I should have also challenged you to define ‘correlation’ and ‘causation’, as you’re presenting the former in response to my request for the latter.

      For the sake of argument, let’s say that the findings of the vaguely cited study are correct. Leaving aside that we’re not told what – if anything – the study concludes is the [edit:] cause of this increase, one can find a great number of things that are on the uptick since the introduction of ‘the pill’, including female participation in the electorate, higher education, and workforce. Should we conclude that birth control is causal in these cases?

      As for forgetting the reverence man is due a woman….
      […]
      We don’t objectify women since then, nope.

      By your logic, conservative Muslims are showing more respect for women than almost anyone these days. Or, perhaps the presence of pin ups on WWII planes showed that America actually respected women more in the 1950s than in the 1940s. I mean, yeah, let’s weigh the Carl’s Jr. ads vs. granting women the right to vote and fair treatment in the workplace. Apples to apples, that. Sorry, I almost forgot that you again failed to demonstrate how birth control is causal.

    30. *chuckle* Nope, Simply covering up a woman doesn’t equate respect. Respect equals respect.

      You’re attempting to turn the Muslims into a straw man,Andre…not working.

      In the 50s, the abuse of women as often perpetrated by radical muslims today was not present.

      But hit google…I bet you’ll find abuse of women in many forms has gone up significant in the last 60 years.

      Direct cause? Divorcing sexual desire from its biological purpose finds itself expressed in no purer form than in pornography…and what’s one of the direct causes of pornography than the devaluing of women?

      Don’t believe?

      “· Men who view pornography regularly have a higher tolerance for abnormal sexuality, including rape, sexual aggression, and sexual promiscuity.”

      https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/the-effects-of-pornography-on-individuals-marriage-family-and-community.html

    31. …..Contraception does not necessarily turn a man into a rapist. But it is worth noting that Playboy and the The Pill both got their start in the same decade…

      A contraceptive mentality thus sickens a *culture* with regards to its attunes towards women, children, and sexuality in general.

      Or, if you don’t believe me, read the article again.
      And Argue With Freud. 🙂

    32. *chuckle* Nope, Simply covering up a woman doesn’t equate respect. Respect equals respect.

      You’re attempting to turn the Muslims into a straw man,Andre…not working.

      In the 50s, the abuse of women as often perpetrated by radical muslims today was not present.

      I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume I was not being clear enough. So, to be clear, your initial argument to show that men respect women less now was to show two ads featuring women and cars – one from the 1950s and one from today – where the major difference was their relative states of dress. I took this to be a simplistic argument that more clothes = more respect. So, no – pointing out that the requirement of that women in certain conservative Muslim societies must be completely covered up does not necessarily indicate that men respect women more is no straw man.

      But hit google…I bet you’ll find abuse of women in many forms has gone up significant in the last 60 years.

      Well, reporting of abuse certainly has gone up (and I’ll let you guess why that might be), I’m less certain about incidences.

      Direct cause? Divorcing sexual desire from its biological purpose finds itself expressed in no purer form than in pornography

      You know, as charming as your intro chuckles and emoticons are, you still seem to have trouble with the idea of what constitutes causation. Neither correlation nor mere assertion is sufficient to demonstrate causation. Sadly, nothing you’ve presented rises above either. Instead of attempting to demonstrate how birth control causes infidelity and the objectification of women, you’re now trying to change the subject to pornography, without doing any work to show how it’s remotely related, and instead of citing academic / medical sources, you’re citing movieguide.org. *chuckle*

    33. I’m glad you find me charming; most folks who dislike the Church’s stances usually resort to profanity and other means to make their point by now. 🙂

      If the topic is objectification of women, wouldn’t pornography count?

      As for causation: Rather difficult to do to the point that folks like yourself will be satisfied.

      What is telling? That the Slippery Slop was predicted by Muggeridge in the 70s….and his predictions came true.

      What is telling? That Paul VI predicted a number of things would happen with regards to marriage and the family….and they came true.

      Birth control, as you define it, didn’t so much cause it, any more than free sugar causes obesity.

      The attitude accompanying artificial birth control is what leads to increased martial infidelity (which I sourced), increased objectification of women (turn on MTV), increased abuse of spouses…statted.

      You may not like the studies I cite….welcome to America. 🙂

      But one thing cannot be gotten away from:

      These things were predicted, and came true.
      And they were predicted as results of artificial birth control.
      And they came true.
      All of ’em.

      Just as GK Chesterton predicted Germany would take Eugenics to its horrible conclusion ‘way before WW2…but no one wants to look at that. Because he’s….well….*Catholic*, after all. 🙂

      Ah, well!
      Do read Muggeridge, though…

      And Chesterton

      “Why do they call it birth control, when it involves neither birth nor control?”
      -GKC

    34. If the topic is objectification of women, wouldn’t pornography count?

      The topic, as I’ve reminded you previously, was a challenge for you to show how birth control directly causes infidelity and the objectification of women.

      As for causation: Rather difficult to do to the point that folks like yourself will be satisfied.

      If you can’t demonstrate causation to people that value evidence, and instead need to rely on claims and predictions, then you might want to consider the possibility that you either don’t understand the claims you’re defending, or even that the claims aren’t defensible.

      What is telling? That Paul VI predicted a number of things would happen with regards to marriage and the family….and they came true.

      Let’s pretend that I predict that America will become increasingly secular because of video games. Now, this may or may not happen, but if it does, I might get credit for being right about the secular aspect, but I doubt that anyone will credit me with being correct about the cause.

      See, it’s much easier to spot a trend than it is to identify the root cause. You’re pointing at a lot of trends, many of which happen to coincide with a period of great cultural and political upheaval in the US. Maybe you and the pope are correct, that birth control is somehow what caused what you claim it did…but it’s one thing to claim, quite another to show.

      The attitude accompanying artificial birth control is what leads to increased martial infidelity (which I sourced), increased objectification of women (turn on MTV), increased abuse of spouses…statted.

      Let’s be clear, you sourced a webpage that cited a study in the vaguest possible way – listing only the author and the year, with neither the title nor link to the study itself being given. The study – who’s findings I gave the benefit of the doubt to for the sake of argument – showed an increase in infidelity between the 1950s and 1980s. The study gives no reasons for this increase, let alone attributing the increase to your supposed ‘attitude accompanying artificial birth control’.

      Let’s leave aside how much you’re dating yourself with your references to MTV. It’s not as easy as pointing to pop-culture and yelling, ‘AHA, see, birth control!’. I can easily point you to nude paintings of women from thousands of years ago, but what does that tell us, and how does it relate to birth control?

      Increased abuse of spouses is indeed something that you “statted” [sic] without giving any particular evidence for. Now, as it happens (and as I stated in my initial response), I don’t doubt that the figures we have today on the abuse of women are higher than they have been in the past. Some of this increase is likely due to increased reporting of these abuse cases. In any case, good luck showing that birth control is causal.

      You may not like the studies I cite….welcome to America. 🙂

      Since this is America, you’re more than welcome to kid yourself into thinking you presented anything of substance.

      But one thing cannot be gotten away from:

      These things were predicted, and came true.

      See my secular America b/c videogames example. Also, predicting the crumbling morality of future generations is nothing new, every generation does it. Often while future generations are busy undoing the effects of past bigotry and oppression.

    35. Hee Hee! I see…unless I can prove, beyond a shadow of any doubt, to your satisfaction, that, indeed, contraception is the direct cause of these issues, you won’t accept.

      First, John 20:25. Honestly, I doubt that I could produce any study, however well sourced, to display this.

      What I have done is show:

      a) Abuse of women has gone up since contraception has become part of our culture.

      b) objectification of women has gone up since contraception has become part of our culture.

      c) infidelity has gone up since contraception has become part of our culture.

      d) these were all predicted as going to happen, right when contraception became part of our culture.

      ….the burden is then upon you, not me, to provide an alternative cause. ‘Cause I and a whole lot of other folks are satisfied.

      If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck….it’s probably a duck. Unless its being a duck suggests we have to use our will and intellect to curb our sexual activity and appetites, instead of chemicals, latex, and human pesticides like RU486/”Plan B”.

      My example, drawn from real-life:
      Eugenics and cultural anti-semitism led to a cultural ethos in Germany that made the holocaust a plausible thing…but I have had racists argue against that as well.

      On the other foot, then: We saw an explosion of misused sexuality following the introduction of the Pill in the 50s, from Playboy to ‘free love’ to no fault divorce, to upswings in infidelity and a host of other issues related to the misuse of sexuality in marriage and the family.

      No one, but no one, has ever caused video games of secularizing America. Nope. Not that I could find, anyway.

      Insisting on stats to prove a societal issue/malaise/ill is more of a red herring, akin to insisting we use sound to indicate the proof of a color’s existence.

      I cited sources, which you didn’t like. Ok. 🙂

      Perhaps looking at the words of the supreme court decision, which acknowledged that we would need to organize our society around abortion-as-backup, since contraception was now enshrined and all that:

      http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/01/contraception-leads-to-abortion-come.html

      So, please avoid hypotheticals. Especially around video games, Those have been sacrosanct to me since (about to date myself again) I blew up space invaders on my atari 2600. 🙂

      Pax,
      JDM85

    36. JDM,

      I think I’ve spent enough time and energy trying to explain what the problems are with your claims, so I’ll briefly respond and let this be my last word.

      I see…unless I can prove, beyond a shadow of any doubt, to your satisfaction, that, indeed, contraception is the direct cause of these issues, you won’t accept.

      Again, you’re fooling yourself. You’ve referred to one study with no apparent link to birth control.

      What I have done is show:

      a) Abuse of women has gone up since contraception has become part of our culture.

      b) objectification of women has gone up since contraception has become part of our culture.

      c) infidelity has gone up since contraception has become part of our culture.

      I’ve said I would try to be brief, so I’ll only deal with your claim that abuse of women has gone up since the pill. First, all you’ve done is claim it has, you’ve done nothing, at all, to show it has. Even if you could find evidence that there was an increase, I struggle to think of how you would separate out birth control from other factors, let alone show some causal effect. In the US, beating one’s wife wasn’t a crime until 1920, and the term ‘domestic abuse’ didn’t appear until 1973, when the women’s rights movement was finally able to get the issue some attention. So, what you might think is a rise in the abuse of women might actually be that this is the first time in US history where we begin to finally pay any real attention to the problem.

      Insisting on stats to prove a societal issue/malaise/ill is more of a red herring, akin to insisting we use sound to indicate the proof of a color’s existence.

      I find it amusing that you are now trying to claim that requesting statistical evidence is a red herring, after supposedly demonstrating (presumably with stats) your points a), b), and c).

    37. Hello, Andre.

      Sorry you have to bow out. I understand. 😉

      Thought I gave you a few stats;

      If you’d like to see the change….

      http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/197370/9-extremely-outdated-etiquette-tips-from-the-1950s/

      to:

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/rampant-sexual-violence-against-women-and-rape-on-college-campuses-across-america/5391303

      ….we went from ettiquite on pinning and eating dinner alone in a man’s apartment, to huge increases of rape on college campuses.

      And this, what I found in five minutes.
      Of course, I can expect that, even if I had more world and time and found the stats you so desire, Andre, methinks you would dismiss them, too, by saying ‘it was all unreported then.”

      Uh-hurm.
      Ah, well!

      Next time you are flipping channels on cable, do take a peek at MTV, and see how it’s changed in its presentation of women from the Cyndi Lauper days…..

    38. I understand your point. But, all things being equal, I will take progress over the hold that religion has over people in most instances. Even the French Revolution was essential to take governing of the country away from a monarchy supposedly ruling by the authority of God.

    39. Chris,

      One thing that psychologists can be good is helping people who have been brainwashed. They can help them develop a better worldview. I say that from personal experience.

    40. Human beings are the most intelligent life forms on the planet. When people claim that their god is more intelligent, they are saying that someone from the Bronze Age is more intelligent than us.

    41. God is not from the bronxe age.the bible is his word if you don’t believe that then you have no business using it to make an argument…just continue to vote to kill babies and live the deranged sodomite life you chose

    42. “just continue to vote to kill babies and live the deranged sodomite life you chose”

      You don’t know me well enough to make that kind of judgment.

    43. yes I do..you have no faith, therefor no mores, no values..you can say anything you want but your lack of any belief but in the ways of the world prove otherwise

    44. “you have no faith, therefor no mores, no values…”

      I don’t believe in any gods, angels, demons or anything else supernatural. I live according to the social mores of this modern world and share many of its values. Your faith doesn’t provide anything that I need.

    45. Well thank you for beating me to it. Saves me time and finger exercise 🙂
      Mind you, I have fired back that same response to Phil on another thread but still here she says the same old same old.

  12. Chris Blackington

    Thanks for writing this, I agree with what you say about negativity towards people with large families. My wife and I have been blessed with five children and we often feel that peoples attitude is how terrible it must be for you! However, a house with a lot of children is a house filled with joy!

    1. Agnivo Bandyopadhyay

      If you continue producing 5 children… I can promise you none of your genes will survive the next 500 years… All your children’s children will die from greenhouse effect, and your beloved Jesus just won’t come… Religion must die for mankind to live.. Get this right

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.