"Be fruitful and multiply"

  • Thread starter Thread starter captainmike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
men were not designed to stay home with kids. but women clearly were. an infant gets milk from its mom, not its dad.
Women were not designed to stay home with the kids while the man worked. If you watch God’s creation, you’ll see that animals like gorillas, chimpanzees etc, the father and the mother both care for the baby. God is showing us through the natural world that men and women are to share responsibility for looking after their child.

Just because a woman’s body produces milk doesn’t mean that God meant her to stay home and raise kids. Men were designed to do it. You just don’t like the idea of it, you see it as “manly” to be the “boss”, the “provider”. You have such a strong idea of what each gender “should” do that you apply your thinking to Bible verses, and take a one-time instruction to an individual couple as “evidence” to support your views.

You want women to stay home and raise children, even if - as happened in the past - they end up becoming mentally ill and/or an alcoholic or drug addict because of it.
 
FWIW, I’ve actually run into situations, such as doctors, who live and work in the same place. The most recent example I’ve come across in my practice is a large house with an attached doctors office. The doctors were immigrants from India, and three generations were living in the house. This way, when the parents were working, the grandparents could take care of the kids. The parents could also see the kids when they didn’t have appointments.

Not everyone just dumps the kids off somewhere for the entire day. If the family needs to work it out, they can find a beneficial way. The situation above demonstrates just that.
 
“For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.” Eph. 5:23.
Yes,pick and choose bits from the Bible to support your opinion.
 
men were not designed to stay home with kids. but women clearly were. an infant gets milk from its mom, not its dad.
That is not correct. A man can hold a milk bottle containing expressed milk or formula. Not all women breastfeed and they feed their babies with a bottle too. A man can change nappies, burp a baby, rock it and sing it to sleep.
 
That is not correct. A man can hold a milk bottle containing expressed milk or formula. Not all women breastfeed and they feed their babies with a bottle too. A man can change nappies, burp a baby, rock it and sing it to sleep.
My wife and I worked seperate shifts when we first got married.

It was a great gift for me to be able to wake up with my first child, have breakfast together, and take her shopping or go to the beach or park in the morning before I had to go to work.

I took her for her doctor’s appointments, she went to the lumber yard with me and out to lunch… We did everything together for the first four years of her life.

-Tim-
 
men were not designed to stay home with kids. but women clearly were. an infant gets milk from its mom, not its dad.
The church also teaches that abortion is wrong even in the case where the mother’s life is in danger. So a good Catholic couple might encounter this situation, were both child and mother are in danger and should be treated with hope that both will live. Every now and then the mother will die in this situation and then dad is left with the baby all on his own, perhaps even with other young children to care for. What is he to do then? Is he incapable of raising his own child?

I think it is very hurtful to assume men are incapable of caring for their own children. I know many fathers who are wonderful and devoted parents. They would do anything for their children and work very hard to raise and care for them. To suggest that dad isn’t as good at parenting as mom is just very inconsiderate to the many wonderful fathers out there.

I also know for a fact that the church teaches about the importance of fathers and values their contributions to their families greatly.
 
👍👍👍 Its great what your wife and you did.
I appreciate the kind words.

Most adoptive parents, including us, don’t look at it that way. We just look at it from the perspective of us needing a family, and the child needing the family, so we get together and create that family. 🙂
 
The arguments in this thread are absolutely ridiculous on both sides. On the one hand, there is the argument that people should just have as many children as they possibly can and God will provide fully for them. This is irresponsible, and if the children would be placed in jeopardy because of malnutrition or lack of shelter or clothing, it would be idiotic to jump into having the next child assuming that God will feed them.

However, the arguments on the other side are shallow, as well. I believe it was stated that women are not baby making factories, and that the woman is somehow not more geared towards the care of children than the male. This is blatantly false. As God created human beings, women are the natural providers of sustenance to the child until they are able to eat solid food. They are also physically weaker than males, and, because of the natural shape of their hips, are not geared towards hunting (which required walking great distances). There is a REASON that females cared for children for thousands of years (though they did work in the fields, as well), and not merely because men were jerks. They are simply naturally geared for it.God created man and woman complimentary to one another, equal in dignity. He did NOT make us equal in every department, as is seen. There are clearly differences between men and women, and it cannot all be attributed merely to social learning and societal norms (see the New Advent link).

The statement that women are not called to be baby making factories (derogatory term that I’ll address later) and that God calls them to a career rather than to have children is certainly possible, but the discernment process must be placed in context. First, what does one consider God ‘calling’ them to stop having children? The fact that it is difficult? The fact that more luxuries will be given up to provide for the child? The fact that a career might be sacrificed for the child? These are foolish reasons for discerning out of having more children. If my mother had ‘discerned’ this way, many of my brothers and sisters would not be born, and she would still be working as an engineer. Children are a sacrifice, yes. But is God really calling someone to stop having them for the sake of a career? I can’t answer this, but EXTENSIVE prayer and spiritual direction should be taken before one considers ceasing to have children because of the desire for a career or luxuries.

If one does truly come to the conclusion that they are being called to stop having children and pursue a career, that is fine. But saying that a woman is merely a ‘baby making machine’, and that making many children during the lifetime of the woman is somehow a bad thing takes away so much from the human dignity and beauty of women that I am actually repulsed by this viewpoint. The Blessed Mother was a wife and mother. She is the most amazing person that has ever been created. Since all she did was bear Christ and rear Him (and serve God faithfully, this is obvious), was she merely a ‘baby making machine’? Was my mother, who gave up her career for more children, a ‘baby making machine?’ Absolutely not. Mary is a beautiful and wonderful woman that carried out the will of God without selfishness or fear. And, quite honestly, my mother is a braver woman for giving up her career for the sake of my beloved brothers and sisters than most of the ‘career’ women I know that stopped having children. Actually, make that all of them.

Just think if Mary had lived today and had been asked to bear Christ in her womb, and she had a career that she loved but would have to give it up. She would still do it. Christ, Mary, the Joseph and all the saints are the people we should be imitating when it comes to discernment of something difficult, not resorting to ‘I don’t feel called to have more children because I want them to have their own rooms and pay entirely for their school and be able to buy them designer clothes’. NONE of those things were necessary for me to be raised, and I thank God that my mother had the courage and love of Him to give up her personal aspiration for a career in order to bring my beloved brothers and sisters into this world.

This question must be asked: are you seeking to hastily stop having children because of personal aspirations, or are you truly, with your whole heart, crying out the the Lord, “What may I do to serve You, that Your Will be done?” Catholicism isn’t a faith of comfort, it is a faith of conforming (to God) regardless of comfort (not necessities). In the end, if one has come to a conclusion after enduring, consistent prayer, receiving of sacraments, spiritual direction, and surrender of self to God, the conclusion will likely be correct (so long as it is not sinful).

A final note to some of the other ‘arguments’ made: the Catholic teaching on matrimony actually does place the male as the spiritual head of the family and the mother as the traditional primary care-taker (both links). This does not mean women are subservient, or that they are required to relinquish careers. At all. Again, men and women are both complimentary to one another’s strengths and weaknesses, and should not be attempting to outdo one another in idiotic societal contests.

Childbearing is such a beautiful and wonderful thing, it should never be looked down upon in favor of more luxury or comfort or personal aspirations, but only for absolute necessity (sustenance, shelter, clothing, safety). Childbearing is a far greater thing than anything any man will ever do in any career.

Encyclical on Marriage:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

New Advent explanation of the Christian family:

newadvent.org/cathen/05782a.htm

May you all discern selflessly and with God’s will at the forefront. Pray for me, that I may do the same.
 
Also, I must say that I can relate to improper discerning. I was at one point terrified of the concept of priesthood. After spiritual direction and much prayer that God’s Will be done, and not my own (that He conform my will to His), I let this fear go and realized the beauty of the priesthood, and that my fear of it had been based in selfish desires and fears (being successful at a career, being lonely, not being ‘free’ to do as I pleased). When many ‘discern’ God’s Will, they tend to leave God out of the equation. The question of ‘what is God calling me to do, regardless of my own personal fears or selfish desires’ must be asked in prayer and, preferably, with a spiritual director.

My reason for the previous post is that I have seen so many times people place comfort or selfish desire above the will of God. God may have given them the same path they had taken, but they did not first seek to know His will. People often do this: they make decisions based on comfort and not on what they truly believe God to desire of them. If the saints did this, there would be quite a bit less martyrs.

The sum of my argument is that being called to a career and to raise children is possible, but child bearing and rearing is, quite honestly, a greater calling (this is fully supported by our Faith, as marriage and the family is an integral part of life, whereas ‘toiling in the fields’ is to support the family). The decision must not be taken lightly, should not be based on ‘I don’t want to because I won’t be able to have luxuries’, and should be based on intensive prayer, self-sacrificial desire for God’s will, and spiritual direction with a priest or deacon.
 
Adam and Eve were told to fill the Earth. That’s already be done. Filling the earth is not the same as being open to life. People don’t need to have ten kids anymore. Not everyone is called to do so. Those being called to have large families are doing so.
Married people are called to be open to life, whether God sends them no children or 10 children. Those married in the eyes of God have to have serious reasons to avoid a pregnancy, and even then, abstinence is the only way…
 
The Catholic Church teaches that the primary ends of marriage is the procreation of children and that married couples may, for serious reasons, delay, for a certain or indefinite period of time, the procreation of children by abstaining from the marital act or by utilizing only the unfertile periods of the woman’s natural cycle. See the excerpts from Casti Connubii and Humane Vitae below.

Casti Connubii, Pius XI, December 31, 1930
As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy when he says: "The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: ‘I wish,’ he says, ‘young girls to marry.’ And, as if someone said to him, ‘Why?,’ he immediately adds: ‘To bear children, to be mothers of families’… But Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth… The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children…

Humanae Vitae, Paul VI, July 25, 1968
With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time… If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

CAPTAINMIKE says we should be saying, “Have children, have lots of them.” The phrase would be better if it read, “Have lots of children if you are able and it would be prudent to do so.” Such a statement would be consistent with the teachings of the Church.

The Church knows that, in general, married couples will want to engage in the marital act throughout their marriages simply as a natural desire. Therefore, the Church has no need to mandate that such acts take place. Instead, the Church places the restriction of methodically utilizing the infertile period in lieu of the non-fertile period of a woman’s cycle (NFP) to instances in which the couple has serious reasons. That is the real question here; what constitutes a serious reason?

It appears that STARSMURF believes that a serious reason would be an aversion to changing diapers and being bored to tears staying home with kids or that a serious reason would be a preference to a career over a life as a mother. Right or wrong, STARSMURF will be judged relative to the seriousness of the reason only by God.

Many of the posters who foam at the mouth over CAPTAINMIKE’s post seem to downplay the fact that a serious reason must be present to use NFP. CAPTAINMIKE would simply like to hear more homilies wherein priests promote true selflessness. If your reason is financial hardship, perhaps you could re-evaluate your lifestyle and understand that you do not need all of the material goods you once thought. If your reason is that you are too tired to have another child, perhaps you could take on that additional burden by recognizing Christ’s sacrifice. If your reason is that you want to pursue a career instead, perhaps you could re-evaluate how your choice of the vocation of marriage should impact you. Such homilies would be no different than homilies in which priests exhort the faithful to give more to charity, to perform more acts of charity, to pray more, to fast more, etc. (I DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE WHAT CONSTITUTES A SERIOUS REASON TO USE NFP, THAT IS FOR GOD TO JUDGE). Priests should be exhorting married couples to prayerfully consider whether or not their reasons for using NFP are serious. Priests should counsel couples to error on the side of generosity when making these decisions.

For those who prefer to be motivated by threats of hell rather than the rewards of heaven, instead of “Have lots of children if you are able and it would be prudent to do so,” it could be said, “If you are using NFP without a serious reason you will burn in hell!!!”
 
It appears that STARSMURF believes that a serious reason would be an aversion to changing diapers and being bored to tears staying home with kids or that a serious reason would be a preference to a career over a life as a mother. Right or wrong, STARSMURF will be judged relative to the seriousness of the reason only by God.

**How dare you.

I do not think I am called to be a mother. I have no desire to be one and don’t think I could make a good one. That completely contradicts all your “women are meant to be mothers” arguement. Had God wished me to be one, he would have given me maternal instincts.

Those are “serious reasons” because it would be detremental to the life of the child. I could never be the kind of loving parent a child needs. Staying home all day with a child would drive me crazy and I would end up screaming at them. Many women over the years DID have mental breakdowns as a result of staying home to change diapers.

You seem to think that the care of a child should stop a woman having a career. It doesn’t there are many childcare options, including a lower-earning husband staying home to take care of the child(ren). Many women limit the numbers of their children through NFP as they simply can’t afford to give a child the kind of life chances that would be the duty of a responsible parent. Things like a college/further education are the only way that child would ever have a good life themselves.

Another serious reason would be the case of my sister who has just had a baby. she had a horrendous time, two days of labour follwed by an emergency caesarian. There is simply no way she could do that every year. She will not be having 10 kids because she is 38, as like many young women today, she didn’t marry until later in life, as she didn’t meet the person she married until later. That also limits the size of families.

Without women working, the systems we all depend on would collapse. Women simply cannot take months off to have a child every few years. Women have just as much right to a professional life as men. If men want women to have more children, then they should start voting in politicians who support systems like the Scandinavian one, where there are nurseries so women can work knowing their child is properly cared for. They also need to vote in laws that prevent women being sacked or discriminated against because of pregnancy or childcare and that gives decent, paid maternity and paternity leave. Finally, but very importantly, they need to stop moaning about women getting pregnant and needing time off. If you want more children, then put your money where your mouths are

Don’t judge me because I have no desire to have a child. That is how God made me and many other women, it doesn’t make it a sin.**
 
The Catholic Church teaches that the primary ends of marriage is the procreation of children and that married couples may, for serious reasons, delay, for a certain or indefinite period of time, the procreation of children by abstaining from the marital act or by utilizing only the unfertile periods of the woman’s natural cycle. See the excerpts from Casti Connubii and Humane Vitae below.

Casti Connubii, Pius XI, December 31, 1930
As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy when he says: "The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: ‘I wish,’ he says, ‘young girls to marry.’ And, as if someone said to him, ‘Why?,’ he immediately adds: ‘To bear children, to be mothers of families’… But Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth… The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children…

Humanae Vitae, Paul VI, July 25, 1968
With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time… If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

CAPTAINMIKE says we should be saying, “Have children, have lots of them.” The phrase would be better if it read, “Have lots of children if you are able and it would be prudent to do so.” Such a statement would be consistent with the teachings of the Church.

The Church knows that, in general, married couples will want to engage in the marital act throughout their marriages simply as a natural desire. Therefore, the Church has no need to mandate that such acts take place. Instead, the Church places the restriction of methodically utilizing the infertile period in lieu of the non-fertile period of a woman’s cycle (NFP) to instances in which the couple has serious reasons. That is the real question here; what constitutes a serious reason?

It appears that STARSMURF believes that a serious reason would be an aversion to changing diapers and being bored to tears staying home with kids or that a serious reason would be a preference to a career over a life as a mother. Right or wrong, STARSMURF will be judged relative to the seriousness of the reason only by God.

Many of the posters who foam at the mouth over CAPTAINMIKE’s post seem to downplay the fact that a serious reason must be present to use NFP. CAPTAINMIKE would simply like to hear more homilies wherein priests promote true selflessness. If your reason is financial hardship, perhaps you could re-evaluate your lifestyle and understand that you do not need all of the material goods you once thought. If your reason is that you are too tired to have another child, perhaps you could take on that additional burden by recognizing Christ’s sacrifice. If your reason is that you want to pursue a career instead, perhaps you could re-evaluate how your choice of the vocation of marriage should impact you. Such homilies would be no different than homilies in which priests exhort the faithful to give more to charity, to perform more acts of charity, to pray more, to fast more, etc. (I DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE WHAT CONSTITUTES A SERIOUS REASON TO USE NFP, THAT IS FOR GOD TO JUDGE). Priests should be exhorting married couples to prayerfully consider whether or not their reasons for using NFP are serious. Priests should counsel couples to error on the side of generosity when making these decisions.

For those who prefer to be motivated by threats of hell rather than the rewards of heaven, instead of “Have lots of children if you are able and it would be prudent to do so,” it could be said, “If you are using NFP without a serious reason you will burn in hell!!!”
The Church marries infertile people.

You say you do not want to debate what constitutes a serious reason to use NFP but you have made sarcastic comments on what others have said, putting your own slant on things.
You are suggesting that a woman who is too tired to have another child to do so anyway. So if a woman cannot cope taking care of another child or whose body cannot bear another child without risk, she should just suck it up and have another child?

Financial hardship is just that.

The Church does not say a married woman cannot have a career and should be a stay at home mother.

What is it exactly about your words I have bolded ? Charming.
 
It is scandalous for someone to say that using NFP to avoid children is licit when the reason is that the person has no desire for children, or wants to pursue a career instead of motherhood. It is a Catholic’s duty to call such statements scandalous since they are so blatantly opposed to the Church’s teaching in Humanae Vitae that the reason must be serious.

STARSMURF now has added to her personal reason for using NFP (at least I assume she is married and using NFP). Before it seemed to be she couldn’t be bothered with changing diapers or being bored at home because she wanted to pursue her career. Now, she added that she truly thinks that she might have a mental breakdown or become depressed, etc. That is a completely different reason than just, “I want to pursue a career,” which is blatantly scandalous. (Though I don’t know about the morality of entering into a marriage fully expecting to use NFP to avoid pregnancy for the entire marriage – the principal ends of marriage is the procreation of children.)

I do not think that the woman must be the one who stays home with the kids in every circumstance. I actually wish my wife was able to earn enough to afford health insurance, mortgage payment, etc so I could stay home with the kids instead of her. However, I do think that women generally are better at raising children than men. A woman cannot let a child continue to cry (it usually makes them feel uneasy or sick or anxious) while a man oftentimes has no such issue.

My wife and I have four children in the first four and a half years of our marriage. We plan on using NFP for a year or so so that my wife doesn’t strangle me. SEVERUS, I don’t see anything wrong with a woman using NFP because she cannot cope with another child at the current time (with periodic reconsideration) or because her body cannot handle another child at the current time. Married women do not have to stay at home and can have careers (but that doesn’t mean they can use NFP without a serious reason).

STARSMURF’s logic is misplaced when she says that parents must be able to afford a child’s college or further education. This is the only way the children will have a good life? Are you kidding? The children in Africa and South America living in poverty don’t have good lives because they don’t have advanced education. You must have just made a mistake in your writing and not really meant that.
 
It is scandalous for someone to say that using NFP to avoid children is licit when the reason is that the person has no desire for children, or wants to pursue a career instead of motherhood. It is a Catholic’s duty to call such statements scandalous since they are so blatantly opposed to the Church’s teaching in Humanae Vitae that the reason must be serious.

STARSMURF now has added to her personal reason for using NFP (at least I assume she is married and using NFP). Before it seemed to be she couldn’t be bothered with changing diapers or being bored at home because she wanted to pursue her career. Now, she added that she truly thinks that she might have a mental breakdown or become depressed, etc. That is a completely different reason than just, “I want to pursue a career,” which is blatantly scandalous. (Though I don’t know about the morality of entering into a marriage fully expecting to use NFP to avoid pregnancy for the entire marriage – the principal ends of marriage is the procreation of children.)

I do not think that the woman must be the one who stays home with the kids in every circumstance. I actually wish my wife was able to earn enough to afford health insurance, mortgage payment, etc so I could stay home with the kids instead of her. However, I do think that women generally are better at raising children than men. A woman cannot let a child continue to cry (it usually makes them feel uneasy or sick or anxious) while a man oftentimes has no such issue.

My wife and I have four children in the first four and a half years of our marriage. We plan on using NFP for a year or so so that my wife doesn’t strangle me. SEVERUS, I don’t see anything wrong with a woman using NFP because she cannot cope with another child at the current time (with periodic reconsideration) or because her body cannot handle another child at the current time. Married women do not have to stay at home and can have careers (but that doesn’t mean they can use NFP without a serious reason).

STARSMURF’s logic is misplaced when she says that parents must be able to afford a child’s college or further education. This is the only way the children will have a good life? Are you kidding? The children in Africa and South America living in poverty don’t have good lives because they don’t have advanced education. You must have just made a mistake in your writing and not really meant that.
You are making personal attacks on starsmurf. That is against forum rules.

Do you really think those children in South America and Africa are having decent lives? Education is a way of getting out of the vicious poverty cycle. Anyway what is the relevance to people wanting higher education for their children?

Another point - not all Catholics in the world have the finances to eat good food, the wives to take prenatal vitamins or even have prenatal care. Many pregnancies take a toll on the body with among other things, calcium leached out from their teeth. Unfortunately, these may be the same people who want more children to help with the family income and have no ability to find out about or use NFP methods.

A man will often have no issue with hearing his baby and cry? A hard hearted man I would think who has no business being a father.
 
It is scandalous for someone to say that using NFP to avoid children is licit when the reason is that the person has no desire for children, or wants to pursue a career instead of motherhood. It is a Catholic’s duty to call such statements scandalous since they are so blatantly opposed to the Church’s teaching in Humanae Vitae that the reason must be serious.

STARSMURF now has added to her personal reason for using NFP (at least I assume she is married and using NFP). Before it seemed to be she couldn’t be bothered with changing diapers or being bored at home because she wanted to pursue her career. Now, she added that she truly thinks that she might have a mental breakdown or become depressed, etc. That is a completely different reason than just, “I want to pursue a career,” which is blatantly scandalous. (Though I don’t know about the morality of entering into a marriage fully expecting to use NFP to avoid pregnancy for the entire marriage – the principal ends of marriage is the procreation of children.)

I do not think that the woman must be the one who stays home with the kids in every circumstance. I actually wish my wife was able to earn enough to afford health insurance, mortgage payment, etc so I could stay home with the kids instead of her. However, I do think that women generally are better at raising children than men. A woman cannot let a child continue to cry (it usually makes them feel uneasy or sick or anxious) while a man oftentimes has no such issue.

My wife and I have four children in the first four and a half years of our marriage. We plan on using NFP for a year or so so that my wife doesn’t strangle me. SEVERUS, I don’t see anything wrong with a woman using NFP because she cannot cope with another child at the current time (with periodic reconsideration) or because her body cannot handle another child at the current time. Married women do not have to stay at home and can have careers (but that doesn’t mean they can use NFP without a serious reason).

STARSMURF’s logic is misplaced when she says that parents must be able to afford a child’s college or further education. This is the only way the children will have a good life? Are you kidding? The children in Africa and South America living in poverty don’t have good lives because they don’t have advanced education. You must have just made a mistake in your writing and not really meant that.
I’m not married, your un-Christian and judgemental statements about me are totally wrong. You’ve wrongly accused me of several sins.

I don’t want children because I wouldn’t make a good mother, that is a serious reason as I stated before, but you want to go on with your personal attacks. Your post has been reported, by the way, so you will be hearing from a moderator shortly.

You see “career women” as selfish, when in actual fact they may simply be realistic, like myself, and realise that they do not have the qualities that make a good parent. If you don’t have those things, you shouldn’t bring a child into the world. Your comment about a father leaving a baby to cry is blatantly sexist, I hope you don’t treat your own children like that. My own father felt as distressed by our cries as my mother and my brother-in-law is as attentive a father as my sister is a mother. Men and woman aren’t different creatures, they’re the same.

Those children in Africa and South America don’t have good lives, they have lives that are short, painful and full of suffering. There is a reason that life expectancy is so short in those countries. One in four children die before their fifth birthday. They have insufficent nutrition, lack clean water and cannot access education and healthcare You’ve clearly never been there. I’ve seen the results of poverty first hand, and seen how a college education can break the cycle.

I do mean that advanced education is necessary for a good life, those without one often struggle to finance a single life, nevermind having kids. Those without a college education have a shorter life expectancy and a much higher rate of health problems, which they often cannot get treatment for (in the US). For parents to keep on churning out children, when they cannot provide for those they already have, is utterly selfish. If you think that NFP is a sin, then you should practice complete abstinance, you can’t say that’s a sin, unless you think Our Lady and St Joseph were sinners.
 
You are making personal attacks on starsmurf. That is against forum rules.

Do you really think those children in South America and Africa are having decent lives? Education is a way of getting out of the vicious poverty cycle. Anyway what is the relevance to people wanting higher education for their children?

Another point - not all Catholics in the world have the finances to eat good food, the wives to take prenatal vitamins or even have prenatal care. Many pregnancies take a toll on the body with among other things, calcium leached out from their teeth. Unfortunately, these may be the same people who want more children to help with the family income and have no ability to find out about or use NFP methods.

A man will often have no issue with hearing his baby and cry? A hard hearted man I would think who has no business being a father.
👍 Thank you, Severus! Excellent post.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top