Can this be true??

[fix]

askeptic:

I would agree with that to some extent. People definitely have a duty to society to procreate in order to replace the population, otherwise human beings will simply cease to exist.

I am not advocating that people be childless, as I have said before procreation is very important.

At the same time, it is ridiculous to expect that people always be open to life. No one is open to the possibility of having 20 kids, for instance. (And women are fertile from 20 to 40) Any sane person, whether he is using NFP or birth control, is hoping to limit his family to a reasonable size.

NFP and birth control accomplish the same goal: they allow people to have a reasonable number of children.

NFP requires an insane amout of mucous, cervix, and temperature observations. Birth control is much more practical.

My intention was to point out marriage has to be rightly ordered. It is not simply how we define it, but has a specfic nature that needs to be respected. Contraception violates the natural law.

The sinfulness of birth control is rooted in the arrogation of the right to separate the actualized love union in marriage from a possible conception, to sever the wonderful, deeply mysterious connection instituted by God. This mystery is approached in an irreverent attitude. We are here confronted with the fundamental sin of irreverence toward God, the denial of our creaturehood, the acting as if we were our own lords. This is a basic denial of our being bound to God: it is a disrespect for the mysteries of God’s creation, and its sinfulness increases with the rank of the mystery in question. It is the same sinfulness that lies in suicide or in euthanasia, in both of which we act as if we were masters of life.
omsoul.com/pamview.php?idnum=153

 

[bear06]

askeptic:

For stats consider mothers’ mortality rate in the third world.

My mother had 2 children and spent about 2 months in a hospital bed with each of us. When she wasn’t in the hospital she was throwing up. All in all, she was very sick.

Some women handle pregnancies well, but I doubt that anyone can handle the stress of many children well. Post partum depression is another issue to consider.

And there is the very important factor of women being able to be involved in society. It is very hard to do if you are constantly pregnant or have 5+ children to take care of. How can a woman be a doctor, a lawyer, a politician, a scientist etc. with that number of kids? She can’t.

You don’t have kids do you? I have awful morning sickness and tough pregnancies. It’s really quite a small portion of my life. As far as society, that comment is laughable. The best women in society are the ones who have children. Why? Because we have a vested interest in making society the best we can for our children. Besides that, raising multiple well-formed children is one of the best things anyone can do for society. I actually know professional women who have large families. Not only that, I know families with extremely large families where 95% of the children are doctors, lawyers and teachers. That said, why is it that you think that one has to be a doctor, lawyer, politician, etc. to have an important impact on society. It would seem that you have quite a narrow and immature view.

Now let’s look at the third world. I guess you must think that women in the third world should not be allowed to have any children. You sound very supportive of women’s rights! Having children is not the problem. Having a grossly abusive government is. Contracepting isn’t going to change this in any way shape or form. And, giving Africans condoms isn’t going to stop AIDS. It will only spread the disease since condoms aren’t effective at stopping STDs and people are putting all of their faith in a little piece of latex which fails most of the time. Once again, this only proves that the Catholic Church is the only one who truly has the answers.

I noticed that you didn’t address the issue of condom failure. Reason? All in all, your reasoning is very selfish whereas the Church’s reasoning has nothing but the best rational and science, for that matter, for all of her members and the world. Our faith is about self-sacrifice and true love, not pleasure for pleasure’s sake.

 

[Redbandito]

askeptic:

For stats consider mothers’ mortality rate in the third world.

My mother had 2 children and spent about 2 months in a hospital bed with each of us. When she wasn’t in the hospital she was throwing up. All in all, she was very sick.

Some women handle pregnancies well, but I doubt that anyone can handle the stress of many children well. Post partum depression is another issue to consider.

And there is the very important factor of women being able to be involved in society. It is very hard to do if you are constantly pregnant or have 5+ children to take care of. How can a woman be a doctor, a lawyer, a politician, a scientist etc. with that number of kids? She can’t.

Askeptic, you have no idea what you are talking about on this issue. As a licensed counselor, I call your bluff. For starters, MANY women DO handle the “stress” of many children very well. For centuries, women have handled big families, and handled it just fine. And don’t presume to speak for all women. There might be some women that “can’t handle it”, although God never gives us more than we can bear (1 Cor 10:13). However, to say that no women “can handle the stress of many children well”, is not only presumptuous, it is also ignorant and wrong. I know 50-60 women off the top of my head that have handled this with more grace than you or I could ever pray to have. Faithful Catholics do not view children as a burden, as you obviously do. We view them as a blessing. It’s a big difference in perspective.

And as far as post partum depression, what about it? Consider how rare this is with women and that there is medication to treat it. You are just throwing whatever ludicrous accusations out that you can and hoping something will stick. It doesn’t lend to credibility.

I’m sorry to hear about your mother, but she is in the extreme minority. You are trying to make the rule based on the “exceptions to the rule”. Your logic is backward. And I do believe your emotional experience is likely the reason you are not looking at this rationally.

Your last paragraph is off the subject. Whether it is “hard” or not does not make it any more or less true. And a woman always has choices. If her priority is her career, maybe she should work on that awhile before getting married. There are many different options, but the mere fact that it is supposedly “hard” does not justify doing something immoral. The end does not justify the means.

 

[EtienneGilson]

bear06:

As far as society, that comment is laughable. The best women in society are the ones who have children. Why? Because we have a vested interest in making society the best we can for our children.

This is laughable…no offense to my mother.

It has been historical Catholic teaching that the celibate life (for women: religious orders and consecrated virgins) is a higher calling than married life.

I guess Mother Theresa must have ranked rather low.

asceptic, I won’t get involved here in this debate but the arguments against contraception have a weakness. Here is a hint: natural law. Humani Vitae was based on natural law (philosophy, not theology) yet the greatest Catholic philosophers had already REGECTED the natural law arguments from a Thomistic perspective (Jacques Maritain and Germain Grisez).

Only later did “theology of the body” develop, which in many ways is the abandonment of modern historical scripture scholarship and revamps the traditional view of the trinity (isolating the Catholics from the Orthodox and leaving the eastern Catholics in limbo).

Essentially contraception is a teaching floating around without a sound foundation; either in philosophy or theology.

 

[askeptic]

bear06:

You don’t have kids do you? I have awful morning sickness and tough pregnancies. It’s really quite a small portion of my life. As far as society, that comment is laughable. The best women in society are the ones who have children. Why? Because we have a vested interest in making society the best we can for our children. Besides that, raising multiple well-formed children is one of the best things anyone can do for society. I actually know professional women who have large families. Not only that, I know families with extremely large families where 95% of the children are doctors, lawyers and teachers. That said, why is it that you think that one has to be a doctor, lawyer, politician, etc. to have an important impact on society. It would seem that you have quite a narrow and immature view.

This ignores the fact that some women would not be happy being stay at home mothers, but would rather dedicate their lives to their professional careers. Success in science, for instance, requires a full commitment and pregnancy would take away from a woman’s ability to compete in the field.

Does it mean that talented women who love science should not get married? I see nothing wrong with them being married, sharing their lives with the men they love, and at the same time using birth control because having a family is not compatible with the path they have chosen.

I think human happiness and quality of life is important, more important than having large families instead of small families.

Now let’s look at the third world. I guess you must think that women in the third world should not be allowed to have any children.

I don’t think anyone should be forbidden to procreate, but I think women in the third world would benefit greatly from being given the chance not to have any children even if their husbands have sex with them whenever they please.

Why don’t you look up how many women die due to childbirth complications in the third world. Every one of those women is justified in contracepting.

I noticed that you didn’t address the issue of condom failure. Reason? All in all, your reasoning is very selfish whereas the Church’s reasoning has nothing but the best rational and science, for that matter, for all of her members and the world. Our faith is about self-sacrifice and true love, not pleasure for pleasure’s sake.

I addressed it more than once.

 

[fix]

EtienneGilson:

I won’t get involved here in this debate but the arguments against contraception have a weakness. Here is a hint: natural law. Humani Vitae was based on natural law (philosophy, not theology) yet the greatest Catholic philosophers had already REGECTED the natural law arguments from a Thomistic perspective (Jacques Maritain and Germain Grisez).

Only later did “theology of the body” develop, which in many ways is the abandonment of modern historical scripture scholarship and revamps the traditional view of the trinity (isolating the Catholics from the Orthodox and leaving the eastern Catholics in limbo).

Essentially contraception is a teaching floating around without a sound foundation; either in philosophy or theology.

The magisterium has taught it is intrinsically wrong and it may be known from the natural law. It is not a new teaching and theologians who disagree do not have the gift of infallibility. There is only one magisterium.

 

[askeptic]

Redbandito:

Askeptic, you have no idea what you are talking about on this issue. As a licensed counselor, I call your bluff. For starters, MANY women DO handle the “stress” of many children very well. For centuries, women have handled big families, and handled it just fine. And don’t presume to speak for all women. There might be some women that “can’t handle it”, although God never gives us more than we can bear (1 Cor 10:13). However, to say that no women “can handle the stress of many children well”, is not only presumptuous, it is also ignorant and wrong. I know 50-60 women off the top of my head that have handled this with more grace than you or I could ever pray to have. Faithful Catholics do not view children as a burden, as you obviously do. We view them as a blessing. It’s a big difference in perspective.

How many women nowadays even have big families? The average number of children per woman in US is around 2. In Europe it is less than that.

In my whole life I have never met anyone with more than 3 children in their family (in fact I dind’t meet them, I heard of them because they were my friend’s relatives. EDIT: Nope, I actually know a Catholic lady with 3 kids, a Catholic girl who’s one of 3, and one of my classmates in college a Catholic guy who might be one of 5 or more. But then again, this doesn’t change national averages.). In fact, most people had 1 or 2.

For centuries women had no choice but to have big families, they did not have birth control or NFP, and their husbands had sexual desires that needed to be satisfied.

Now that women have a choice they are choosing to have very small families, why? Are they all evil, selfish, and corrupt? Or might it be that they actually can’t handle large families?

At the same time, I am not denying that there might be many women who can handle many children and who enjoy it. And you know what? GOOD FOR THEM! I am completely supportive of their choices. What I do not support is forcing that lifestyle on people who can’t handle many children, or who want their lives to focus on other pursuits.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

magdelaine:

I came across this thread in the Ask an Apologist forum. It just doesn’t make any sense that a condom used post-conception could still be called “contraception”. Any thoughts on this?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=93482

One cannot purposefully spill their seed. This applies to all forms of sexual gratification which spills the seed, even if the wife is involved in the act.

Condoms break. Too many people have been duped into thinking condom sex is “safe sex.” It’s not. The only safe sex is abstinence. For the specific case above, the couple would be saying to themselves: “I understand condoms break. I don’t care, the pleasure of sexual gratification is soooo good that it is worth risking the heath of two other human beings, just so I can have an orgasm.” Hmmmmm… and this is supposed to be a moral act?

 

[Brendan]

askeptic:

In my whole life I have never met anyone with more than 3 children in their family (in fact I dind’t meet them, I heard of them because they were my friend’s relatives. EDIT: Nope, I actually know a Catholic lady with 3 kids, a Catholic girl who’s one of 3, and one of my classmates in college a Catholic guy who might be one of 5 or more. But then again, this doesn’t change national averages.). In fact, most people had 1 or 2.

I’m one of 6, I have 94 first cousins, not including marriages. I have 4 myself (the oldest is 7) and my wife and I desire more.

Now that women have a choice they are choosing to have very small families, why? Are they all evil, selfish, and corrupt? Or might it be that they actually can’t handle large families?

If that is the case, why do you feel that women today are LESS capable than their grandmothers?

Maybe part of that is because they don’t realize how beautifully efficent a large family is. My best friend is oldest of 11 (yes eleven). His mother and my wife were talking, and my friend’s mother commented that she can’t understand how women with LESS than 4 can manage. And it’s true. 4 kids are easier than 2. Honest.

And yes, there is little doubt that there is a lot of selfishness in play with today’s familys. A large family is, by definition, a very selfless thing. Things are held in common, and there is less free capital.

In today’s consumerist society, there are far too many who think that an Xbox and a Disney vacation are better for ‘junior’ than another sibling.

Far too many want to give their kids “their own stuff” instead of teaching them the value of sharing. And then they complain to their friends how society is too self centered, sheesh!

What I do not support is forcing that lifestyle on people who can’t handle many children, or who want their lives to focus on other pursuits.

How do they know they “can’t handle children”? Their mothers could, their grandmothers could, and with a lot less resources available as well. What is preventing them from even trying? How would the ever really know?

Is 'Can’t" the same thing as “Won’t”

 

[askeptic]

Brendan:

I’m one of 6, I have 94 first cousins, not including marriages. I have 4 myself (the oldest is 7) and my wife and I desire more.

I think it’s fair to say given the national averages that your family is exceptional. I am very glad it’s working out for you, but from it doesn’t follow that it can work out for everybody.

If that is the case, why do you feel that women today are LESS capable than their grandmothers?

I don’t think they are less capable. I’m sure today’s women could survive having 15 kids during their lifetime even better than their grandmothers. But survival is only a part of the question.

What would their quality of life be like? Doubtless for women who love children, who love mothering, who love pregnancy and handle it well this would be a great setup.

Women who want to dedicate their lives to medicine, science, law etc. would be severely limited by numerous pregnancies and young children.

Women who don’t handle pregnancy well physically or psychologically would also be limited.

Their grandmothers didn’t have a choice, modern women do, and most are choosing small families.

Maybe part of that is because they don’t realize how beautifully efficent a large family is. My best friend is oldest of 11 (yes eleven). His mother and my wife were talking, and my friend’s mother commented that she can’t understand how women with LESS than 4 can manage. And it’s true. 4 kids are easier than 2. Honest.

Do you get your kids to do all the chores or something?

In today’s consumerist society, there are far too many who think that an Xbox and a Disney vacation are better for ‘junior’ than another sibling.

On the other hand, access to extracurricular activities (i.e. expensive martial arts/dancing classes), family vacations, a reasonable access to enjoyable activities such as computer games are all a part of what makes life enjoyable and rewarding.

 

[EtienneGilson]

fix:

The magisterium has taught it is intrinsically wrong and it may be known from the natural law. It is not a new teaching and theologians who disagree do not have the gift of infallibility. There is only one magisterium.

If it is accessable through natural law, one would wonder why the Catholic Church stands alone, not even with the Orthodox on the issue.

And yet the magisterium has changed moral teachings like slavery and torture before. The pope has not invoked the office of infallibility on the subject and has engaged arguments. It really isn’t much of an argument if no criticism can be leveled.

There is only one magisterium and it is not the pope. Do not suppose that infalliblity is such a magical tool.

 

[askeptic]

EtienneGilson:

If it is accessable through natural law, one would wonder why the Catholic Church stands alone, not even with the Orthodox on the issue.

And yet the magisterium has changed moral teachings like slavery and torture before. The pope has not invoked the office of infallibility on the subject and has engaged arguments. It really isn’t much of an argument if no criticism can be leveled.

There is only one magisterium and it is not the pope. Do not suppose that infalliblity is such a magical tool.

This is a very good point. Murder for instance is a grave evil, and virtually everyone recognizes it.

The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is a grave sin, it’s in the same category as rape, murder, slavery, child abuse etc.

Why is it that most people, INCLUDING MOST CATHOLICS, use birth control?

Are they all evil and depraved, or could it be that this is a senseless teaching that does more harm than good?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I know… we all hate math… but let’s look at the numbers…

Condoms are reported to be 90% effective against prevention of HIV. I doubt that stat, but let’s presume it to be true. This means that in 10 sexual encounters, your condom, on average, will fail to prevent HIV transmission, right?

I don’t know what disease the spouse of the particular couple has, but in ten times having sex with his/her spouse, is it moral to expose the spouse and child to the disease? If so, for what reason, an orgasm?? Doesn’t this seem to be a rather selfish reason to expose your infant to desease? There’s other ways to love you spouse.

Uganda at one time had the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the world. Starting in the mid to late 1980s, its government instituted a program to teach abstinence before marriage and fidelity to one’s partner afterwards. … The results were astonishing. In 1991, the prevalence rate of HIV was 15 percent. By 2001, it had dropped to 5 percent. It was the biggest HIV infection reduction in world history.

… Imagine if I get drunk one night and drive my wife around town. That’s not a loving act. And it doesn’t suddenly become loving just because I tell her to put on her seatbelt. When an HIV-positive person has sex with someone who’s free of the disease, he puts that person at grave risk. That’s not love; that’s selfishness. In a marital situation where one spouse is HIV-positive and the other negative, the loving thing to do is to abstain from sex. In those cases, love must be shown in other ways, such as the self-sacrifice that abstinence requires. It’s not easy, but real love rarely is.

beliefnet.com/story/183/story_18348.html

There’s no safe sex. Don’t have sex if the consequences of having sex risk the health of you loved ones.

 

[precious_roy]

askeptic:

I think it’s fair to say given the national averages that your family is exceptional. I am very glad it’s working out for you, but from it doesn’t follow that it can work out for everybody.

I don’t think they are less capable. I’m sure today’s women could survive having 15 kids during their lifetime even better than their grandmothers. But survival is only a part of the question.

What would their quality of life be like? Doubtless for women who love children, who love mothering, who love pregnancy and handle it well this would be a great setup.

Women who want to dedicate their lives to medicine, science, law etc. would be severely limited by numerous pregnancies and young children.

Women who don’t handle pregnancy well physically or psychologically would also be limited.

Their grandmothers didn’t have a choice, modern women do, and most are choosing small families.

Do you get your kids to do all the chores or something?

On the other hand, access to extracurricular activities (i.e. expensive martial arts/dancing classes), family vacations, a reasonable access to enjoyable activities such as computer games are all a part of what makes life enjoyable and rewarding.

Well, I think that you really lost out in this aspect trying to hold on to this argument.

I am an adult YM at my parish and in the high school youth group there are 4 familes of 4 or more.

Family 1
10 kids
Father: Engineer
Mother: Teacher

Family 2
6 Kids
Father: Doctor
Mother: Doctor

And the other 2 I don’t actually know their parents, but I assume they they do something quite lucrative because they do live in nice neighborhoods. So it CERTAINLY is possible to have large families. And yes, their kids do all of the chores around the house. But they also understand that it is necessary for them to tend to these things or the family will fall apart.

And even if this was not the case, a lot of mothers wish to dedicate their lives to their children and thus would give up their career to take care of them. This certainly isn’t odd either.

 

[askeptic]

itsjustdave1988:

I know… we all hate math… but le’t look at the numbers.

Condoms are reported to be 90% effective against prevention of HIV. I doubt that stat, but let’s presume it to be true. Then after 10 sexual encounters, your condemn, on average, will fail to prevent the prevention of HIV, right?

I don’t know what disease the spouse of the particular couple has, but in ten times having sex with his spouse, is it moral to expose his wife and child to the disease? If so, for what reason, an orgasm?? Doesn’t this seem to be a rather selfish reason to expose your infant to desease?

There’s no safe sex. Don’t have sex if the consequences of having sex are too great.

I don’t know too much about how effective condoms are. But if the chance of harming the child is 10%, then yes they should abstain.

But they have already consented to having sex and risking the STD, then after pregnancy they should go ahead and use condoms to minimize that risk.

 

[CatholicMedic]

Are they all evil and depraved, or could it be that this is a senseless teaching that does more harm than good?

Maybe is shows that people are generally selfish.

I haven’t seen where the teaching causes more harm than good…only when it is not followed.

If one wants to learn more of the whys about this teaching I suggest *Good news about Sex and Marriage * by Christopher West.

I found it very eye opening;Q&A format using a lot of reason and logic

 

[itsjustdave1988]

askeptic:

I don’t know too much about how effective condoms are. But if the chance of harming the child is 10%, then yes they should abstain.

But they have already consented to having sex and risking the STD, then after pregnancy they should go ahead and use condoms to minimize that risk.

They have decided to risk their OWN health. Now they are deciding for someone else who doesn’t get a vote. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Putting a seat-belt on when riding with a drunk driver might reduce the risk to head damage. But it is still stupid. It’s smarter not to get in the car, even if a seat-belt “minimizes that risk.”

 

[askeptic]

precious_roy:

Well, I think that you really lost out in this aspect trying to hold on to this argument.

I am an adult YM at my parish and in the high school youth group there are 4 familes of 4 or more.

Family 1
10 kids
Father: Engineer
Mother: Teacher

Family 2
6 Kids
Father: Doctor
Mother: Doctor

I am not saying it’s impossible for women with many children to be professionally successful. But “teacher” and “doctor”, is not the same as “leading scientist in her field.” To be that successful a person needs to dedicate all of her time to her work, and being pregnant and having children would impede that.

If you want some actual statistics on this, here they are:

cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm

A women’s educational level is the best predictor of how many children she will have, according to a new study from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study, based on an analysis of 1994 birth certificates, **found a direct relationship between years of education and birth rates, with the highest birth rates among women with the lowest educational attainment./**QUOTE]

Women with college degrees can be expected to complete their childbearing with 1.6-2.0 children each

aaup.org/publications/Academe/2002/02nd/02ndmas.htm

The second school of thought, the “work versus family” school, believes it is the unbending nature of the American workplace, configured around a male career model established in the nineteenth century, that forces women to make choices between work and family. Rather than a thousand paper cuts, it is the sixty-hour work weeks and the required travel that force women with children to leave professions, including academia. Because the academic job market demands that workers relocate for their jobs, women with families face an additional difficulty. According to proponents of this theory, most women do not get as far as reaching tenure at MIT, but take a different route earlier.** In her recent book The Price of Motherhood, Ann Crittenden points out that at MIT, only seven of sixteen tenured women professors had children in 2000, suggesting that most women scientists who have children do not make it that far**

.

Overall, women with late babies and women without children demonstrate about the same rate of achieving tenure, a rate higher than women with early babies.

Presumably, women who have babies later in their career life have already achieved job security. **They are also more likely to have only one child. **
QUOTE]

Overall, women who attain tenure across the disciplines are unlikely to have children in the household. Twelve to fourteen years out from the Ph.D., 62 percent of tenured women in the humanities and social sciences and 50 percent of those in the sciences do not have children in the household

. By contrast, only 39 percent of tenured men in social sciences and humanities and 30 percent of those in the sciences do not have children in the household 12 to 14 years out from the Ph.D.

Women with early babies often do not get as far as ladder-rank jobs.

They make choices that may force them to leave the academy or put them into the second tier of faculty: the lecturers, adjuncts, and part-time faculty. Across the disciplines, women with early babies are more likely than those who have late or no babies to be part of the neck rather than the head.

 

[bear06]

This is laughable…no offense to my mother.

It has been historical Catholic teaching that the celibate life (for women: religious orders and consecrated virgins) is a higher calling than married life.

Ooops. I actually meant to say “some” and not all. The laughable part is that mothers don’t make awesome contributions to society. I think we’d agree upon that. I will say, however, that the celibate life is only a higher calling if you are actually called to do it. Categorically the religious life is the best calling but it can be a disaster if this is not your calling. The best calling is the life God wills for you but that’s another topic.

 

[precious_roy]

askeptic:

I am not saying it’s impossible for women with many children to be professionally successful. But “teacher” and “doctor”, is not the same as “leading scientist in her field.” To be that successful a person needs to dedicate all of her time to her work, and being pregnant and having children would impede that.

Correct. And so would marriage. And so would having sex. If you are really dedicated to what you are doing, then dedicate ALL of your time to it. Don’t do it half assed.

If you want some actual statistics on this, here they are:

cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm

A women’s educational level is the best predictor of how many children she will have

, according to a new study from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study, based on an analysis of 1994 birth certificates, **found a direct relationship between years of education and birth rates, with the highest birth rates among women with the lowest educational attainment./**QUOTE]

aaup.org/publications/Academe/2002/02nd/02ndmas.htm

Overall, women with late babies and women without children demonstrate about the same rate of achieving tenure, a rate higher than women with early babies.

Presumably, women who have babies later in their career life have already achieved job security. **They are also more likely to have only one child. **
QUOTE]

Nice statistics. The problem is that these are CORRELATIONAL and not CAUSATIONAL (and a lot of hind sight analysis I might add). There are correlations between the birthrates of moles in Africa and the number of students graduating Central Florida University but it does not mean that they cause that to happen.

Now obviously having kids would detract from the time you could spend doing something, but I would certainly not say it was impossible. Again, if your primary goal is to be a leader in your field then great, make it your top goal and dedicate all your time to it. But do not do it at the expense of your spouse and your children. Don’t get married until you are ready to take on the obligation of a family.