Maternal Age as a serious reason to avoid pregnancy

[The_Bucket]

Guys and gals, there’s a reason that the Church in Her wisdom has left it up to individual couples to decide if they have sufficient reason to avoid pregnancy and a licit way of doing so that does not throw mud on the natural order of sexual intimacy.

Less politely said, the rank and file need to seriously stop trying to dictate or even suggest when and if and where and under what circumstances good married Catholic men and women have sex. Seriously. Threads like this irk me to no end (and I assure you that the word “irk” is not the first, second or even third term that comes to mind here)

We’re going to have this debate again? Seriously? Over whether people are somehow being selfish with natural family planning? Or not trusting God enough? Good Lord. The very nature of NFP includes trusting in God and in His design!

Why slash down one another over something like this when you could be praying for others who are murdering the unborn, committing grave ills in order to twist nature to their wills to conceive a child and discarding the unwanted, not feeding the poor, not caring for the sick, not visiting the imprisoned, not clothing the naked?

 

[mommamaree]

If large families are being oversold on this thread then you and I are reading different threads. This thread is started using age as a reason to have smaller families based on statistical risks.

Not quite. This thread was started because a good Catholic mother was not sure if she was ready to be done having babies yet, and she is experiencing pressure from her family and community to stop having babies, and she wanted to explore the question of whether or not maternal age is a just reason to use NFP. I argued that the age-related challenges that occur for older mothers (harder pregnancies and childbirth and increased risk of miscarriage/stillbirth/hemorrhaging) are just reasons, but simply because someone had just reasons does not ever make them morally obligated to use NFP. But the question of aiming for smaller families was not in the thread. The mother who wanted to start this thread, kindly helped by PaulinVa in getting it started, has six or seven kids, so limiting family size was not the question at all.

 

[Rico_S]

Part of the reason for the friendly fire is that NFPers usually overstate their case. NFP is all butterflies and candy and it is so awesome, and it is approved by the Church, in fact all people should be educated in it etc…

I agree it is oversold in a lot of ways.

But the anti-NFP/providentialist crowd overstates it case as well. Economic reasons can’t justify not having more kids…only if there is near certainty that a baby will have genetic defect…age is not a just reason. All are overstating the case.

As pointed out earlier NFP is the exception. Sex is the default.

Totally agree:thumbsup:

Nevertheless, the vast majority…VAST…will need to rely on some sort of birth regulation at some point in their fertile married life. PaulinVA posted about that several time in this thread.

 

[Rico_S]

Not quite. This thread was started because a good Catholic mother was not sure if she was ready to be done having babies yet, and she is experiencing pressure from her family and community to stop having babies, and she wanted to explore the question of whether or not maternal age is a just reason to use NFP. I argued that the age-related challenges that occur for older mothers (harder pregnancies and childbirth and increased risk of miscarriage/stillbirth/hemorrhaging) are just reasons, but simply because someone had just reasons does not ever make them morally obligated to use NFP. But the question of aiming for smaller families was not in the thread. The mother who wanted to start this thread, kindly helped by PaulinVa in getting it started, has six or seven kids, so limiting family size was not the question at all.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I agree it is oversold in a lot of ways.

But the anti-NFP/providentialist crowd overstates it case as well. Economic reasons can’t justify not having more kids…only if there is near certainty that a baby will have genetic defect…age is not a just reason. All are overstating the case.

Totally agree:thumbsup:

Nevertheless, the vast majority…VAST…will need to rely on some sort of birth regulation at some point in their fertile married life. PaulinVA posted about that several time in this thread.

If the NEED is so VAST then please tell me what has historically been used in the Church to do this?

 

[The_Bucket]

If the NEED is so VAST then please tell me what has historically been used in the Church to do this?

Natural infertility, miscarriage, preterm birth and infant death. That, and abstinence.

 

[The_Bucket]

simply because someone had just reasons does not ever make them morally obligated to use NFP.

Right. Prudence might dictate that it’s a good idea, but that’s the extent of it.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Not quite. This thread was started because a good Catholic mother was not sure if she was ready to be done having babies yet, and she is experiencing pressure from her family and community to stop having babies, and she wanted to explore the question of whether or not maternal age is a just reason to use NFP. I argued that the age-related challenges that occur for older mothers (harder pregnancies and childbirth and increased risk of miscarriage/stillbirth/hemorrhaging) are just reasons, but simply because someone had just reasons does not ever make them morally obligated to use NFP. But the question of aiming for smaller families was not in the thread. The mother who wanted to start this thread, kindly helped by PaulinVa in getting it started, has six or seven kids, so limiting family size was not the question at all.

Yes I agree. I did not make clear at all what I was trying to say. My only point is that large families certainly have not been oversold on this thread. I have been around for all the replies and I have not seen large families being OVERsold. Or sold at all. I do however see NFP being “sold” and I see some personal bias in reasons to not have children over a certain age. But I have not seen anyone selling large families. IN fact I have seen a well known large family ridiculed.

 

[mommamaree]

If the NEED is so VAST then please tell me what has historically been used in the Church to do this?

Two things:

Complete abstinence
Rhythm method

Third thing, less well-known:
Women around the world were aware of the mucus signs for MILLENNIA, and passed on the information. Modern NFP is built on the back of this old-time wisdom, and used the scientific method to research and perfect the use. The temperature signs were a more recent discovery. But we shouldn’t be so blinded by our own modern “wisdom” that we begrudge the wisdom of our elders who figured some of this out millennia ago.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Natural infertility, miscarriage, preterm birth and infant death. That, and abstinence.

Sure, but there was no organized name for it. No classes being taught, no manuals being written. Just plain old married life being practiced.

Bookcat mentioned something about that a few posts ago and I loved it.

Something about it not being thought about but just being part of a marriage.

 

[The_Bucket]

Yes I agree. I did not make clear at all what I was trying to say. My only point is that large families certainly have not been oversold on this thread. I have been around for all the replies and I have not seen large families being OVERsold. Or sold at all. I do however see NFP being “sold” and I see some personal bias in reasons to not have children over a certain age. But I have not seen anyone selling large families. IN fact I have seen a well known large family ridiculed.

All the more reason that the only good answer to questions like this is:

“The Church has left it up to individual couples to prayerfully discern if they have reasons to avoid pregnancy for a time or even indefinitely. Pray about it, search your heart, talk to your spouse and let your well-formed consciences guide your actions.”

 

[mommamaree]

Yes I agree. I did not make clear at all what I was trying to say. My only point is that large families certainly have not been oversold on this thread. I have been around for all the replies and I have not seen large families being OVERsold. Or sold at all. I do however see NFP being “sold” and I see some personal bias in reasons to not have children over a certain age. But I have not seen anyone selling large families. IN fact I have seen a well known large family ridiculed.

Who, the Duggars? I love that family. I know they adhere to some beliefs we reject, but I think they are just a great witness for trusting God and loving children and devoting one’s whole life to Christ and family. Their show is one of the few shows I can watch on TV.

 

[The_Bucket]

Sure, but there was no organized name for it. No classes being taught, no manuals being written. Just plain old married life being practiced.

Bookcat mentioned something about that a few posts ago and I loved it.

Something about it not being thought about but just being part of a marriage.

Ok, but also a part of the way things “used to be” was more children dying young, more miscarriages due to poor health of the mother, women dying in childbirth, desperate poverty for 99% of the world’s population… see where I’m going here?

Plenty of people had “only” 4-5 kids making it near adulthood, because the rest were dead. I daresay advances in medicine, technology and overall knowledge of anatomy (including NFP) have been good.

I’m neither lobbying for or against large families. I’m not yet 30 and have three kids of my own. I’m the oldest of six kids myself.

I’m lobbying for staying the heck out of the sex lives of good, Catholic married women and men living by the teachings of the Magesterium.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Two things:

Complete abstinence
Rhythm method

Third thing, less well-known:
Women around the world were aware of the mucus signs for MILLENNIA, and passed on the information. Modern NFP is built on the back of this old-time wisdom, and used the scientific method to research and perfect the use. The temperature signs were a more recent discovery. But we shouldn’t be so blinded by our own modern “wisdom” that we begrudge the wisdom of our elders who figured some of this out millennia ago.

Is it your contention that MOST Catholic women knew about fertility signs thousands of years ago. That someone named Marie in Ireland in 1250 rounding up chickens in the village knew ovulation days?

Did some have this knowledge? Perhaps. I would need to see the academics of that one. But “most” nope. Most “Catholic” women today do not know about mucus signs.

 

[Rico_S]

If the NEED is so VAST then please tell me what has historically been used in the Church to do this?

The need, historically speaking, was not necessarily the same as today.

Things were different then…Lower life expectancy, high birth mortality rates for infant and mother, higher miscarriage rate, lower survival rates for infants with birth defects, agrarian society, things along these line (as Bucket List pointed out).

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

If the NEED is so VAST then please tell me what has historically been used in the Church to do this?

Breast feeding. Formula came along in the beginning part of the 20th century. Before that most mothers nursed their own babies, or if they could not, baby was fed by someone else. Breast feeding in the past was a natural child spacer. In third world countries it is still and the safest for both mothers and children.

My Great Grandmother had 8 kids, between the ages of 21 - 43. She had 4 kids in her 20’s 3 in her thirties and the last at 43.

 

[The_Bucket]

Is it your contention that MOST Catholic women knew about fertility signs thousands of years ago. That someone named Marie in Ireland in 1250 rounding up chickens in the village knew ovulation days?

Did some have this knowledge? Perhaps. I would need to see the academics of that one. But “most” nope. Most “Catholic” women today do not know about mucus signs.

Okay how about this then…

Given what we know about the nature of man, I think it’s a fair assumption that most people did not practice abstinence or anything like the rhythm method. They practiced withdrawal, engaged mutual masturbation, oral sex to completion, used less-reliable barriers and plain old had herb-induced abortions when all else failed.

Man is as fallen as he ever was when it comes to sexuality. No more or no less really. The only major difference is methods used and scientific “advances” to increase efficacy.

 

[Thorns]

So, the Church does not address what to do when you feel your family is “built out” and “complete”. That is a corollary to the maternal age idea, in my mind.

Some people are perfectly happy having babies into their forties. But, for most couples, “we are done” comes before menopause.

I do not think that we are supposed to have babies until we drop. Accepting children as they come and actively trying are two different things. Maternal age does bring a higher risk of defects. It also draws out the time you are responsible for raising them. Taking on a baby at 42 means that you have very little time to save for retirement, and you will be at high school graduation at 60. Not impossible, but not for everyone.

I think the whole thing should be looked at. it’s maternal age, husband and wife’s health, finances, and other things.

You have a point IMO.

Isnt the fact that all these risks exist as age escalates basically NATURE telling us to stop having kids?

Doesnt the Church support the Natural Law?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Ok, but also a part of the way things “used to be” was more children dying young, more miscarriages due to poor health of the mother, women dying in childbirth, desperate poverty for 99% of the world’s population… see where I’m going here?

Plenty of people had “only” 4-5 kids making it near adulthood, because the rest were dead. I daresay advances in medicine, technology and overall knowledge of anatomy (including NFP) have been good.

I’m neither lobbying for or against large families. I’m not yet 30 and have three kids of my own. I’m the oldest of six kids myself.

I’m lobbying for staying the heck out of the sex lives of good, Catholic married women and men living by the teachings of the Magesterium.

This has been dealt with in the thread already. I have no desire to rehash it.

But the long and short of it is that Catholic morality cannot be different for different people.

It is completely normal and Holy for someone to get married and have children who starve or are persecuted in Iraq. And it is apparently normal and Holy to avoid bringing forth life because you wish to pay for private school for your kids.

The Church has used phrases like “responsible” parenthood. It turns out “responsible” can mean whatever you wish it to so I wonder why the word was used at all?

But like I said, somewhere in the 300 plus posts this has been hashed out. If you have new insight I would be glad to re-enter the issues.

 

[Xantippe]

Gardenswithkids,

I think there may be a misunderstanding here, with you thinking that when I say “serious reasons” I mean “shouldn’t have kids.” I just take “serious reasons” to mean “serious reasons,” meaning that one has the option of avoiding, but not the duty to avoid.

HoosierDaddy said:

"You are going to have to keep narrowing that bubble. Most Catholics do not have large families and use ABC. But when you start getting down to “within the practicing Catholic NFP or “naturalists” or in a state of grace to receive Holy communion your complaint loses its sting.”

Let’s say the Catholic bubble I was in as a new convert, new bride of a pointy-headed intellectual Catholic guy, avid reader of the CCL newsletter, and hopeful future mother. That was my Catholic bubble.