Catholics that say they'd never have any biological children for this reason

[Hoosier_Daddy]

There’s a difference there. People kept having children in droves anyways precisely because the life expectancy was so low, and they did their best to care for those children and raise them to adulthood not knowing what the outcome would be. However, knowing that one is carrying a gene, or a disease, that is passed down to a child and could cause tremendous suffering is not the same thing at all.

I don’t think this is a factual representation of anthropology or history. It may be your opinion that that is why people had children back then but it ignores and excuses the small procreation numbers today.

The fact is that marriage, family, sex, and children were looked at different back then. And technology was not as advanced in methods of sterilization or birth control, nor was it readily available.

There is a very real difference in attitude between “back then” and now.

 

[severus68]

I’m still not seeing it. 99% of the humans in history decided to be intimate in marriage, knowing it would likely bring pregnancy and knowing that 25%+ of their resulting children would likely die before reaching adulthood from disease, accidents, famine, war, etc.) Don’t kid yourself that Tay-Sachs is worse thant he myriad of other diseases that have historically fatally afflicted children. But back then, people decided to press on anyways.

Today people faced with the SAME outcome shiver in fear because we aren’t used to it anymore. We’ve come to think that easiness and pleasure are our birthrights. They’re not. Back then they didn’t need genetic testing results to know that some of their children would not survive to adulthood. It was a fact of life for everybody.

I’m sorry that sounds harsh and I have the deepest sympathy for those have lost children. I’m just not convinced that the proper perspective on risk is being achieved here. I’d proceed to have kids normally. Actually, we did precisely that (not Tay Sachs, but another condition that posed increasing likelihood of miscarriage with successive pregnancies).

How many wives could say ‘no’ to their husbands back then so as to space births and allow their bodies to rest ? Who knew about diseases and even germs back then?

Won’t comment about your personal circumstances but no one can judge or decide for another couple. It is between them and God.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

How many wives could say ‘no’ to their husbands back then so as to space births and allow their bodies to rest ? Who knew about diseases and even germs back then?

Won’t comment about your personal circumstances but no one can judge or decide for another couple. It is between them and God.

Back when?
When exactly.
This is what I do not understand. You are saying these things like they are fact. You are insinuating that women could not say no to husbands for the majority of human history. Frankly that shows that you are regurgitating lines from people with an agenda. That is not a fair, balanced or accurate view of history. It is not even logical.

God himself, 2000 years ago asked permission of Mary. As did many many people in history. In fact I submit to you that women had more power back then specifically because of their sexuality. Kingdoms were given away, won, and taken because of a single woman.

Your statement that people did not know of diseases and germs back then is boggling as well. They knew more than we did. They burned bodies by the thousands, they knew plague, disease. We see a deadly disease under a microscope, they looked it in the eyes of their dead children while holding their other children back lest they become infected.
I think your view of history is common, but lacks evidence.
Points you have made in your posts.

1. People had more children to make up for dead children.
2. People were dumb back then and did not comprehend things like disease.
3. Women were “raped” by men and lacked the basic human right of “no”

This is not an accurate view. And it certainly in not fair to those who cannot speak for themselves 100s or 1000s of years later. Many a loving and good husband has lived and cherished his wife and did not take advantage of her. That basic idea that marriage is a different life affirming, respectful, life giving love may very well have been something that generations past could be teaching our generation. We are the ones who rape women by making sex as trivial as we do.

 

[Rau]

I’m still not seeing it. 99% of the humans in history decided to be intimate in marriage, knowing it would likely bring pregnancy and knowing that 25%+ of their resulting children would likely die before reaching adulthood from disease, accidents, famine, war, etc.) Don’t kid yourself that Tay-Sachs is worse thant he myriad of other diseases that have historically fatally afflicted children. But back then, people decided to press on anyways.

Today people faced with the SAME outcome shiver in fear because we aren’t used to it anymore. We’ve come to think that easiness and pleasure are our birthrights. They’re not. Back then they didn’t need genetic testing results to know that some of their children would not survive to adulthood. It was a fact of life for everybody.

I’m sorry that sounds harsh and I have the deepest sympathy for those have lost children. I’m just not convinced that the proper perspective on risk is being achieved here. I’d proceed to have kids normally. Actually, we did precisely that (not Tay Sachs, but another condition that posed increasing likelihood of miscarriage with successive pregnancies).

An anthropologist might be required to give greater insight into the drivers of family size in the past. We can say that for most of history, there was little understanding of fertility, and no form of birth control beyond abstinence, and that has now changed.

For me, I can’t equate the historical norm of widely experienced high neonatal death rates and disease with the present, where these things are the exception and can be minimised or avoided. The “acceptable risk” has shifted, and the tools to manage risk have developed. (The latter may be a driver of the former). I don’t think that is intrinsically wrong. We have greater control over those risks, and the consequent suffering, and we choose to exercise it, and I believe such choices are moral. I don’t see an argument that would compel any couple to take great risks (such as the Tay Sachs scenario).

 

[manualman]

An anthropologist might be required to give greater insight into the drivers of family size in the past. We can say that for most of history, there was little understanding of fertility, and no form of birth control beyond abstinence, and that has now changed.

It always amazes me how modern folks so smugly assume that earlier people were dumber than they are today. In my experience, it’s exactly the opposite. People today are mostly ignorant about all but their very narrow specialty while people of former times had a broad and practical set of knowledge and skills. Specifically, I must challenge two things you say here:

1. I betcha a tasty donut that your typical shepherd or rancher from 150 years ago knew a LOT more about fertility than your average accountant or insurance agent does today. If he didn’t, he starved to death. Nobody can raise a flock of farm animals and NOT come to recognize that human reproduction works in similar ways. One hardly needs an iphone to know where babies come from!
2. The idea that contraception is a new invention is just plain ignorance! The reason we know that the church has always opposed contraception is that the historical record is both clear and abundant. Even the Old Testament records Onan attempting to get his jollies while not getting a baby as a result (and he’s condemned for it). Before there was latex, condoms were made from sheep intestines. Herbalists for millennia have mixed up concoctions to bring on sterility or abortion. Contraception is nothing remotely new. What’s new is a culture that embraces it as if it were a GOOD thing, rather than something shameful (and even that’s not so much “new” as it is a return pagan worldviews common before Christianity).

Certainly there were economic reasons that encouraged people to have bigger families in ages past than today. But the fact remains that in spite of similar odds of tragedy, people made the decision to have children then, when today it’s deemed “too risky.”

 

[Rau]

It always amazes me how modern folks so smugly assume that earlier people were dumber than they are today. In my experience, it’s exactly the opposite. People today are mostly ignorant about all but their very narrow specialty while people of former times had a broad and practical set of knowledge and skills. Specifically, I must challenge two things you say here:

1. I betcha a tasty donut that your typical shepherd or rancher from 150 years ago knew a LOT more about fertility than your average accountant or insurance agent does today. If he didn’t, he starved to death. Nobody can raise a flock of farm animals and NOT come to recognize that human reproduction works in similar ways. One hardly needs an iphone to know where babies come from!
2. The idea that contraception is a new invention is just plain ignorance! The reason we know that the church has always opposed contraception is that the historical record is both clear and abundant. Even the Old Testament records Onan attempting to get his jollies while not getting a baby as a result (and he’s condemned for it). Before there was latex, condoms were made from sheep intestines. Herbalists for millennia have mixed up concoctions to bring on sterility or abortion. Contraception is nothing remotely new. What’s new is a culture that embraces it as if it were a GOOD thing, rather than something shameful (and even that’s not so much “new” as it is a return pagan worldviews common before Christianity).

Certainly there were economic reasons that encouraged people to have bigger families in ages past than today. But the fact remains that in spite of similar odds of tragedy, people made the decision to have children then, when today it’s deemed “too risky.”

I can see you’re quite passionate about social history! But you go a bit far to infer broadly smugness (and arrogance and ignorance) on me or those with a similar view.

Now I’m sure the ranchers you refer to knew more about sheep and cattle reproduction than most people today, but not everyone worked in the business of animal reproduction. Consider the washing lady, and the lad who entered the coal mines at 12 or worked in the factories, or were brought up in the workhouses - they may have had to cope with life with rather less education than we “modern folks”.

And we’re not really talking abut whether people knew where babies come from, are we? You seem to be saying that limited availability and effectiveness of birth control had** no part **to play in explaining large family size in the past, and therefore parents in years past actively sought large families (since they could have employed birth control measures if desired.) If your view is that birth control was able to be practiced as widely and effectively then, as it is today - well that’s your view, and I disagree. While I bow to your greater knowledge of mediaeval condoms and what not, are you sure these things were widely employed, and effective?

As to questions of morality, your observations about contraception are fair enough, but I don’t think there are too many (if any) posts in this thread speaking about or advocating contraception. This thread (based on the focus of the original post & most subsequent posts) is about whether avoiding pregnancy (by licit means) in light of a known, specific, untreatable and incurable risk of a terrible affliction for child (and parents), which is hugely greater (1in 4 versus 1 in 62,500) than average risk, is a moral course of action - and a just reason for NFP.

 

[Rence]

Jesus said, “Take up your Cross and follow ME.” HE will supply the Grace to do so for us all. Marriage has many kinds of crosses as does most paths in life. One never knows what path we will be asked to walk. JESUS I TRUST in THEE. God Bless, Memaw

Yes, marriage and life itself has many crosses and many paths. Each has to choose their own. Medical advances have made information more readily available with which people can make educated choices.

 

[Rence]

I’m still not seeing it. 99% of the humans in history decided to be intimate in marriage, knowing it would likely bring pregnancy and knowing that 25%+ of their resulting children would likely die before reaching adulthood from disease, accidents, famine, war, etc.)

It’s much easier to take a risk when you can’t see where threats are coming from and when they’re coming, and what affect they will have. The risk of getting eaten by a bear some time, some day, in some place is not the same as knowing there is a certain percentage of a chance of passing on a specific gene to a child that will result in specific signs and symptoms.

Today people faced with the SAME outcome shiver in fear because we aren’t used to it anymore.

Of course we’re not used it. We don’t share the same experiences today that someone might have 100, 200, 500 years ago. We’re used to better medicine, higher education, and using them to make decisions in our lives. The very fact that you say we aren’t used to it indicates that we do NOT face the same outcome as those before us. The risk of a child dying today of childhood diseases of back-then is very low due to the advances in medicine.

We’ve come to think that easiness and pleasure are our birthrights. They’re not. Back then they didn’t need genetic testing results to know that some of their children would not survive to adulthood. It was a fact of life for everybody.

Not knowing what was coming, when, why and how, is not the same as knowing specifically how to avoid certain outcomes. In the past, doctors didn’t wash their hands between patients, and didn’t use gloves - as a result many patients died. Today, handwashing is a standard of care to prevent the spread of infection. With our growth in experience and knowledge, we have the capacity learn, and as we learn, we have the capability to make informed decisions.

I’m sorry that sounds harsh and I have the deepest sympathy for those have lost children. I’m just not convinced that the proper perspective on risk is being achieved here. I’d proceed to have kids normally. Actually, we did precisely that (not Tay Sachs, but another condition that posed increasing likelihood of miscarriage with successive pregnancies).

That’s because it’s not YOUR risk to take. You can say till you’re blue in the face “I’d just proceed to have kids normally” all you want. But in fact, YOU don’t have the same circumstances as a person who carries a gene that leads to disease, pain and disability. Other people do, and it’s their choice to make. You have YOUR situation, and with the knowledge you have of it, YOU make your choices in life. Others do the same in their unique circumstances.

We do NOT face the same outcomes as those before us. Advances in medical technology have led to healthcare that provides preventative medicine and effective treatment for disease…and the ability to tell whether or not a person has a gene to pass down anomalies to their kids. Today, we vaccinate our children, we treat illnesses that would have been fatal years ago, we treat injuries that would have been fatal years ago, children are safer than they were years ago. There’s quite a bit of difference between then and now with regards to the life expectancy of a child.

 

[Rence]

I don’t think this is a factual representation of anthropology or history. It may be your opinion that that is why people had children back then but it ignores and excuses the small procreation numbers today.

You’re kidding, right? How does it ignore and excuses the small procreation numbers today? We don’t have to have ten kids in order to hope for three to survive. The life expectancy for children is much higher. It’s pretty obvious that we don’t have to have many hoping we’ll end up with just a few.

The fact is that marriage, family, sex, and children were looked at different back then. And technology was not as advanced in methods of sterilization or birth control, nor was it readily available.

There is a very real difference in attitude between “back then” and now.

I agree with the above part. But then again, why wouldn’t it change? It’s part of our evolution to change as we grow, learn and adapt.

 

[Rence]

It always amazes me how modern folks so smugly assume that earlier people were dumber than they are today. In my experience, it’s exactly the opposite. People today are mostly ignorant about all but their very narrow specialty while people of former times had a broad and practical set of knowledge and skills. Specifically, I must challenge two things you say here:

1. I betcha a tasty donut that your typical shepherd or rancher from 150 years ago knew a LOT more about fertility than your average accountant or insurance agent does today. If he didn’t, he starved to death. Nobody can raise a flock of farm animals and NOT come to recognize that human reproduction works in similar ways. One hardly needs an iphone to know where babies come from!

I assure you, it’s not as complicated to increase one’s herd of cows, goats, or sheep as it is to learn NFP or fertility signs in humans. Humans do not display the obvious and blatant signs of heat that tell farmers that their animal is ready to breed. In fact, many farms just leave a bull with their cows, or a buck with their does, or a ram with their ewes, to do all the work without little bother to the farmer. You don’t need a degree in NFP to run a farm. I betcha a tasty donut that most farmers can regurgitate all the details of breeding their animals but wouldn’t know a thing about their wife’s (or their own if the farmer is a she) fertility. I betcha! I betcha!!

1. The idea that contraception is a new invention is just plain ignorance!

Of course contraception isn’t new. It’s just better, more effective and easier to get.

What’s new is a culture that embraces it as if it were a GOOD thing, rather than something shameful

Yes that has changed, especially for married people. The majority of society believes contraception between a married couple is a lot less taboo, that’s for sure.

Certainly there were economic reasons that encouraged people to have bigger families in ages past than today. But the fact remains that in spite of similar odds of tragedy, people made the decision to have children then, when today it’s deemed “too risky.”

Of course, times have changed, and with it the need to take needless risks.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You’re kidding, right? How does it ignore and excuses the small procreation numbers today? We don’t have to have ten kids in order to hope for three to survive. The life expectancy for children is much higher. It’s pretty obvious that we don’t have to have many hoping we’ll end up with just a few.

I agree with the above part. But then again, why wouldn’t it change? It’s part of our evolution to change as we grow, learn and adapt.

It amazes me that you think the small procreation numbers today are because we dont have to have 10 to have three survive. I have no idea where or when you think that was commonplace.
Somehow you think a 7-3 ratio is the reason procreation numbers are down.

Wouldn’t that actually work against your argument? People had large families back in the day and now it is down to less than 2 in some places. So in your logic those people actually gave birth to like 20 something kids just to end up with the 10 that survived.

Despite what you may have been told I just do not know of any evidence to support this claim. If one reads historical books, or even just classic literature one can determine that your view is skewed and has been tainted by revisionists.

Doesn’t it cross your mind that divorce, rampant sexuality without procreative consequences and an attitude of greed have played more of a part in this than some odd notion that people buried a child as some sort of foreplay back in the “old days”

It is as if you and I are living in two completely different worlds.

I respect your right to have the view you have. But I cannot for the life of me understand it.

 

[Rence]

It amazes me that you think the small procreation numbers today are because we dont have to have 10 to have three survive. I have no idea where or when you think that was commonplace.
Somehow you think a 7-3 ratio is the reason procreation numbers are down.

Wouldn’t that actually work against your argument? People had large families back in the day and now it is down to less than 2 in some places. So in your logic those people actually gave birth to like 20 something kids just to end up with the 10 that survived.

Despite what you may have been told I just do not know of any evidence to support this claim. If one reads historical books, or even just classic literature one can determine that your view is skewed and has been tainted by revisionists.

Doesn’t it cross your mind that divorce, rampant sexuality without procreative consequences and an attitude of greed have played more of a part in this than some odd notion that people buried a child as some sort of foreplay back in the “old days”

It is as if you and I are living in two completely different worlds.

I respect your right to have the view you have. But I cannot for the life of me understand it.

Of course burying a child wasn’t a form of foreplay back then. And I don’t get you either.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It’s pretty obvious that we don’t have to have many hoping we’ll end up with just a few.

Can you please cite a period of history where people had to have many to end up with a few?

 

[maryjk]

I speak from experience.

I have a congenital uterine abnormality. This abnormality causes pregnancy outcomes of miscarriage in 37%, preterm birth in 16%, and term birth in only 45% of pregnancies.

So, when I get pregnant, I have less than 50% chance of actually having a full term baby.

I have one child. He was almost 10 weeks early. We were very blessed to have minimal medical and developmental problems with him.

After his birth, we have avoided pregnancy. In the beginning, we used ABC. After I came back to the Church, we used NFP. And we still use NFP to avoid pregnancy. Our son is 17 years old.

So, although we didn’t say we would never have children, we did say, we would try to never have any MORE children. One miracle child is enough.

Does that make us selfish as some here have insinuated? Should we have tried to have more children, simply accepting that almost 40% of the time, I would loose the baby? I don’t think so.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I speak from experience.

I have a congenital uterine abnormality. This abnormality causes pregnancy outcomes of miscarriage in 37%, preterm birth in 16%, and term birth in only 45% of pregnancies.

So, when I get pregnant, I have less than 50% chance of actually having a full term baby.

I have one child. He was almost 10 weeks early. We were very blessed to have minimal medical and developmental problems with him.

After his birth, we have avoided pregnancy. In the beginning, we used ABC. After I came back to the Church, we used NFP. And we still use NFP to avoid pregnancy. Our son is 17 years old.

So, although we didn’t say we would never have children, we did say, we would try to never have any MORE children. One miracle child is enough.

Does that make us selfish as some here have insinuated? Should we have tried to have more children, simply accepting that almost 40% of the time, I would loose the baby? I don’t think so.

I’m 44 and I shouldn’t get pregnant again. My preemie is 4 now.

He was 28 weeks at birth. He suffered jaundice, then sepsis, then kidney dilation. He had 4 blood transfusions, and a spinal tap. He would suffer from apnea and bradycardia. (when the heart rate would slow down) One scary episode, he went from a healthy pink color to a terrible grey.

The worst episode was when my DH came into the NICU and found my son’s nurse crying. His heart sank with dread, that something terrible happened. He was ill with sepsis. A particularly aggressive form of sepsis.

He’s fine now. He’s caught up with his milestones and tomorrow he starts pre-k.

If I were to get pregnant now, I have about a 50 percent chance of miscarriage. If I don’t miscarry the baby would likely be a preemie, perhaps earlier, and perhaps not have such a good outcome.

So we are avoiding. When the discussions come up about grave reasons, or serious or just reasons. If I read about someone else in my same scenario, I would think "Oh yes that is a pretty serious scenario.

The couple in question knows that for each pregnancy the risk is 25% for a baby with Tay Sachs. The Church permits the use of NFP for serious and just reasons. Even indefinite use.

 

[Rau]

It amazes me that you think the small procreation numbers today are because we dont have to have 10 to have three survive. I have no idea where or when you think that was commonplace.
Somehow you think a 7-3 ratio is the reason procreation numbers are down.

Wouldn’t that actually work against your argument? People had large families back in the day and now it is down to less than 2 in some places. So in your logic those people actually gave birth to like 20 something kids just to end up with the 10 that survived.

Despite what you may have been told I just do not know of any evidence to support this claim. If one reads historical books, or even just classic literature one can determine that your view is skewed and has been tainted by revisionists.

Doesn’t it cross your mind that divorce, rampant sexuality without procreative consequences and an attitude of greed have played more of a part in this than some odd notion that people buried a child as some sort of foreplay back in the “old days”

It is as if you and I are living in two completely different worlds.

I respect your right to have the view you have. But I cannot for the life of me understand it.

What do you think explains the different family sizes “then” and “now”? My thoughts are:

1). Couples are drawn to have sex. In times past, the ability to avoid pregnancy (by licit or illicit means) was far less than it is now;

2). For land workers in the past, larger families were likely more in tune with the needs of the family;

3). Nowadays, women perceive a broader set of roles they can play in society, and to do so likely involves a trade-off with number of children.

4). The reasons you list in your 3rd last para play a part also. But, many families where these issues don’t arise are still significantly smaller than those of past generations.

All interesting discussion, but I guess this is all somewhat off topic for the thread…

 

[Memaw]

Yes, marriage and life itself has many crosses and many paths. Each has to choose their own. Medical advances have made information more readily available with which people can make educated choices.

What about moral choices, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church? God Bless Memaw

 

[manualman]

You’re kidding, right? How does it ignore and excuses the small procreation numbers today? We don’t have to have ten kids in order to hope for three to survive. The life expectancy for children is much higher. It’s pretty obvious that we don’t have to have many hoping we’ll end up with just a few.

I agree with the above part. But then again, why wouldn’t it change? It’s part of our evolution to change as we grow, learn and adapt.

So it’s evidence that we’re “learning, growing and adapting” that the richest, healthiest and lowest risk society in human history no longer even has enough babies to replace themselves on a generation by generation basis? Nonsense.

What’s changed is that people today are focused on their own comfort and pleasures rather than having an outwards, others focused view of life and the world. This is the real reason that over 25% child mortality rates were considered acceptable in former times while today it is considered justification for giving up.

(P.S. It’s not just America. Every western nation today has a sub-replacement total fertility rate. Every single one.)

 

[maryjk]

What about moral choices, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church? God Bless Memaw

NFP is a moral choice.

 

[Memaw]

NFP is a moral choice.

I never said it wasn’t, I was referring to what Rence said about educated choices. One could read the responses more carefully. God Bless, Memaw