Immorally having a child

[ellen42]

A few threads in other areas got me thinking about something that I want to pose as a hypothetical.

Is there any situation where choosing to have a child is morally wrong?

I do not mean a situation where an alternative is having an abortion. I mean, after making the decision to have a child, you then proceed to conceive said child – or in more general terms, you do not take any steps to prevent conceiving said child. Another way to pose the question in the context of a married couple and NFP is is there any case where you would be morally obligated to use NFP (or total abstinence), and intentionally (or recklessly) having a child would be a sin?

The origin for this came from several posts I’ve seen where people have made blanket statements to the effect of “Having a child is never a bad thing”, usually in the context of an unexpected pregnancy. That statement just doesn’t feel right to me, and I’m having a hard time explaining why (but just because something feels right doesn’t mean that it is). Making an argument against children, however, always makes you out to be the bad guy. This really only reinforces such blanket statements, because nobody wants to present an argument against children even if it’s perfectly valid.

 

[Bookcat]

This can be helpful perhaps

cormacburke.or.ke/node/995

 

[losh14]

I may not be understanding the gist of your question, but I think there’s never a time when it is morally wrong to have a child once pregnant. It may be morally preferable to avoid intercourse in order to prevent the possibility of conception and hence delay conception - and it in fact quite often is. But I don’t think that quite approaches your question fully.

 

[Bookcat]

It may be morally preferable to avoid intercourse in order to prevent the possibility of conception (via NFP) and hence delay conception - and it in fact quite often is.

I would not say that “quite often it is”

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I think when Catholics say things like “having a child is never a bad thing” they mean that in and of itself the conception of a child is a wonderful thing. A new person has come into existence!

That doesn’t mean a married couple might not legitimately want to space births so that they can better take care of the children they already have, for example. Abstinence during fertile periods can be used in cases like this. However, if a child is conceived anyway it ought to be welcome with joy, even if that joy must be accompanied by anxiety over other related matters.

 

[Bookcat]

1. Conjugal love is by its nature open to the acceptance of life[512]. The dignity of the human being, called to proclaim the goodness and fruitfulness that come from God, is eminently revealed in the task of procreation: “Human fatherhood and motherhood, while remaining biologically similar to that of other living beings in nature, contain in an essential and unique way a ‘likeness’ to God which is the basis of the family as a community of human life, as a community of persons united in love (communio personarum)”[513].

Procreation expresses the social subjectivity of the family and sets in motion a dynamism of love and solidarity between the generations upon which society is founded. It is necessary to rediscover the social value of that portion of the common good inherent in each new human being. Every child “becomes a gift to its brothers, sisters, parents and entire family. Its life becomes a gift for the very people who were givers of life and who cannot help but feel its presence, its sharing in their life and its contribution to their common good and to that of the community of the family”[514].

Continued

 

[Bookcat]

1. The family contributes to the social good in an eminent fashion through responsible motherhood and fatherhood, the spouses’ special participation in God’s work of creation[519]. The weight of this responsibility must not be used as a justification for being selfishly closed but must guide the decisions of the spouses in a generous acceptance of life. “In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised both in the duly pondered and generous decision to have a large family, and in the decision, made for serious reasons and in respect of the moral law, to avoid for a time or even indeterminately a new birth”[520]. The motivations that should guide the couple in exercising responsible motherhood and fatherhood originate in the full recognition of their duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society in a proper hierarchy of values.
2. Concerning the “methods” for practising responsible procreation, the first to be rejected as morally illicit are sterilization and abortion[521]. The latter in particular is a horrendous crime and constitutes a particularly serious moral disorder[522]; far from being a right, it is a sad phenomenon that contributes seriously to spreading a mentality against life, representing a dangerous threat to a just and democratic social coexistence[523].

Also to be rejected is recourse to contraceptive methods in their different forms[524]: this rejection is based on a correct and integral understanding of the person and human sexuality [525] and represents a moral call to defend the true development of peoples[526]. On the other hand, the same reasons of an anthropological order justify recourse to periodic abstinence during times of the woman’s fertility[527]. Rejecting contraception and using natural methods for regulating births means choosing to base interpersonal relations between the spouses on mutual respect and total acceptance, with positive consequences also for bringing about a more human order in society.

1. The judgment concerning the interval of time between births, and that regarding the number of children, belongs to the spouses alone. This is one of their inalienable rights, to be exercised before God with due consideration of their obligations towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society[528]. The intervention of public authorities within the limits of their competence to provide information and enact suitable measures in the area of demographics must be made in a way that fully respects the persons and the freedom of the couple. Such intervention may never become a substitute for their decisions[529]. All the more must various organizations active in this area refrain from doing the same.

(above is from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#The%20family%20is%20the%20sanctuary%20of%20life

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#I

So could it happen that there could be at times even a moral obligation -due say to the circumstances-- to avoid a new conception via period continence or other moral means (abstinence say for a time)? Yes I would say such is possible.

But it is also be the case the “serious reasons” involved while they permit such --do not make it “obligatory” to use period continence…

 

[SonCatcher]

A few threads in other areas got me thinking about something that I want to pose as a hypothetical.

Is there any situation where choosing to have a child is morally wrong?

I do not mean a situation where an alternative is having an abortion. I mean, after making the decision to have a child, you then proceed to conceive said child – or in more general terms, you do not take any steps to prevent conceiving said child. Another way to pose the question in the context of a married couple and NFP is is there any case where you would be morally obligated to use NFP (or total abstinence), and intentionally (or recklessly) having a child would be a sin?

The origin for this came from several posts I’ve seen where people have made blanket statements to the effect of “Having a child is never a bad thing”, usually in the context of an unexpected pregnancy. That statement just doesn’t feel right to me, and I’m having a hard time explaining why (but just because something feels right doesn’t mean that it is). Making an argument against children, however, always makes you out to be the bad guy. This really only reinforces such blanket statements, because nobody wants to present an argument against children even if it’s perfectly valid.

The fact of conception itself is not a sin, even if the sexual act that led to conception is sinful. This is because conception is God’s creative work.

The sex act itself can be sinful under various circumstances including (as you suggest) wanton disregard for one spouse’s well-being.

 

[JNdoum]

I wanted to say that truly there is no argument against children, though I realise you were not implying this. Truly the argument would be on whether or not it would be morally responsible to knowingly try to have a child you couldn’t provide for, or something like that? I think that even married couples have the option of adoption (because adoption is always an option), or having a close friend or family member help out. Otherwise, it would be irresponsible to have a child if, say you already had 8 and couldn’t provide for them. So things like NFP would be necessary, I suppose.

 

[ellen42]

I want to thank everybody who took the time to read my post and replied. However, I think it’s evident that I did not explain my question very well.

1. The judgment concerning the interval of time between births, and that regarding the number of children, belongs to the spouses alone. This is one of their inalienable rights, to be exercised before God with due consideration of their obligations towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society[528]. The intervention of public authorities within the limits of their competence to provide information and enact suitable measures in the area of demographics must be made in a way that fully respects the persons and the freedom of the couple. Such intervention may never become a substitute for their decisions[529]. All the more must various organizations active in this area refrain from doing the same.

This requoted paragraph addresses my issue, but does not answer it. The judgement concerning the interval between births is left to the spouses alone – yes, I knew that – however, is there ever a case where “their obligations towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society” result in the decision to seek out having another child morally wrong? Being open to life means that you still may have a child, in which case there is no sin since the couple was attempting to avoid pregnancy but did not succeed – or in an extreme case, the couple is required to abstain completely because any sexual act that is open to life would be morally impermissible.

The problem in this situation is that we tend to place so much positive reactions to the child that it absolves any sin that may have resulted in the the child’s conception. You see this in cases where teenage girls (usually more than guys) deliberately attempt to have children out of wedlock because they see how we treat mothers and children – and that any shame or scorn for the sin of having a child out of wedlock is washed away or ignored. In this particular scenario, the unwed teenage couple was morally required to abstain since they weren’t married, but that gets ignored because “truly there is no argument against children”.

My question is that can there be a situation within marriage where a couple must abstain, or at the very least, use a very conservative method of NFP lest they run morally afoul?

 

[Cristiano]

…The problem in this situation is that we tend to place so much positive reactions to the child that it absolves any sin that may have resulted in the the child’s conception. You see this in cases where teenage girls (usually more than guys) deliberately attempt to have children out of wedlock because they see how we treat mothers and children – and that any shame or scorn for the sin of having a child out of wedlock is washed away or ignored. In this particular scenario, the unwed teenage couple was morally required to abstain since they weren’t married, but that gets ignored because “truly there is no argument against children”…

I think that you are quite confused about sin, absolving sin and shaming people. Where this need from shaming people comes from? Denouncing sin has nothing to do with shaming individuals, on the contrary often it can be counter productive to shun the sinner.

 

[SonCatcher]

For a married couple, as in your hypothetical, there is no issue of sin (i.e. immoral behavior resulting in conception). There may be the issue of prudence, but that is not the same.

 

[BenedictFTW]

My question is that can there be a situation within marriage where a couple must abstain, or at the very least, use a very conservative method of NFP lest they run morally afoul?

NFP must be used when the couple do not wish to have another child. Abstinence is the preferred way. However, if they cannot abstain and the NFP fails, then they have been blessed by God with another child. They may struggle financially, but every child is a blessing within a holy union.

The teen couple who cohabit and produce a child is an entirely different subject. Just because a child is the end result in both cases does not mean the cases are the same. The cohabiting couple are fornicating and breaking the Commandments of God. However, in the evil world we now find ourselves, with abortion used as birth control, people usually rejoice if the teen couple keep their child. This does not mean that they were right to fornicate.

 

[Corki]

My question is that can there be a situation within marriage where a couple must abstain, or at the very least, use a very conservative method of NFP lest they run morally afoul?

No. As long as we are talking about a married couple and mutual consent, there is no situation where they would be required morally to try not to have a child.

 

[Daizies]

Is it always moral to not abstain(within marriage)? How I look at it is that , for example, during the great depression would it have been immoral to have an additional child that you have no hope of supporting? Or another thread I read on here about if it was immoral to try to have another child if you are on welfare?
I don’t know what official Church teaching is on this, but all my instincts scream that it is a very bad idea.

 

[ellen42]

I think that you are quite confused about sin, absolving sin and shaming people. Where this need from shaming people comes from? Denouncing sin has nothing to do with shaming individuals, on the contrary often it can be counter productive to shun the sinner.

I was getting a little frustrated with myself for not being able to explain what I was trying to say. I do know several girls who did have (or seriously attempt to have) children at the mature age of 16 because they saw the praise and attention that was given to infants and their mothers (One said to me once “Who doesn’t love babies and mothers? I want that!” and then proceeded develop a reputation of ill-repute). They did not desire a marriage and a family, they wanted a baby for attention. In some of their situations, if society had remembered that although the baby itself is not a sinful thing, we shouldn’t be praising teenage girls for having babies out of wedlock, they may not have tried so eagerly. I’m not saying we should shame the sinners or start passing out scarlet letters again – but perhaps we shouldn’t be praising it so much. However, that’s more of a tangent that was unrelated.

For a married couple, as in your hypothetical, there is no issue of sin (i.e. immoral behavior resulting in conception). There may be the issue of prudence, but that is not the same.

No. As long as we are talking about a married couple and mutual consent, there is no situation where they would be required morally to try not to have a child.

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying – but it’s kind of like proving a negative. I’m not the type of person who blindly accepts “No” as answer like this without some sort of justification. The concept of morality was defined earlier, but only in a general sense. Any couple can determine if delaying births is acceptable for them, but the concept is intentionally vague without any strict rules about when it is and is not acceptable. Because of this, it’s very flimsy (logically) to simply state one side as fact.

 

[SonCatcher]

I was getting a little frustrated with myself for not being able to explain what I was trying to say. I do know several girls who did have (or seriously attempt to have) children at the mature age of 16 because they saw the praise and attention that was given to infants and their mothers (One said to me once “Who doesn’t love babies and mothers? I want that!” and then proceeded develop a reputation of ill-repute). They did not desire a marriage and a family, they wanted a baby for attention. In some of their situations, if society had remembered that although the baby itself is not a sinful thing, we shouldn’t be praising teenage girls for having babies out of wedlock, they may not have tried so eagerly. I’m not saying we should shame the sinners or start passing out scarlet letters again – but perhaps we shouldn’t be praising it so much. However, that’s more of a tangent that was unrelated.

For the unmarried person, it’s a different situation. Sexual relations outside of marriage are objectively immoral (if the woman were raped, she does not sin, but the perpetrator commits an immoral act). Likewise with artificial insemination and in vitro insemination.

It is indeed unfortunate that some are intentionally seeking to conceive without the benefit of marriage. Especially since they actively, consciously choose an objectively sinful act.

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying – but it’s kind of like proving a negative. I’m not the type of person who blindly accepts “No” as answer like this without some sort of justification. The concept of morality was defined earlier, but only in a general sense. Any couple can determine if delaying births is acceptable for them, but the concept is intentionally vague without any strict rules about when it is and is not acceptable. Because of this, it’s very flimsy (logically) to simply state one side as fact.

Not at all. You did not suggest anything that could be objectively determined sinful. By intentionally withholding facts from which to derive a conclusion, you make it objectively impossible to determine that a consenting marital embrace could be sinful.

It is not proving a negative at all. God specifically designed the sex act to be practiced by a married couple for the begetting of children (as well as strengthening their marriage bond). Objectively, they do what is right. Therefore, every time they agree to come together and complete the act in a manner conducive to life, they do so within His plan. He blesses them with a strengthened bond. He blesses them with physical enjoyment. Sometimes, He even blesses them with participation in His creative work.

You are the one who is tasked with proving your stance.

 

[Corki]

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying – but it’s kind of like proving a negative. I’m not the type of person who blindly accepts “No” as answer like this without some sort of justification. The concept of morality was defined earlier, but only in a general sense. Any couple can determine if delaying births is acceptable for them, but the concept is intentionally vague without any strict rules about when it is and is not acceptable. Because of this, it’s very flimsy (logically) to simply state one side as fact.

No, it’s not proving a negative; it’s proving the positive. The “yes”, the “default” if you will, for a married couple, is to have sex and make babies. You need a good reason, morally, to not do this. For this reason, you don’t need logic (flimsy or otherwise) to take this position. It’s the position you have if you don’t decide otherwise.

Society has distorted our thinking on this by this idea that you have to “plan” a child, “prepare” to have children, be “ready” for a child. No, you don’t. If you are married, you can have a child - the two come together naturally.

This isn’t just a moral issue, it’s natural law. Not only humans, but any creature in nature that pair bonds, has sex and makes babies.

 

[angelerulastiel]

We often hear about couples where the wife may not survive a pregnancy and the couple wants to use ABC to protect her. Let’s take this situation and look at it differently.

The doctor tells the husband and wife that the wife probably would not survive another pregnancy and the baby might not survive either. Is it moral for the couple to try to get pregnant having this information?