Maternal Age as a serious reason to avoid pregnancy

[PaulinVA]

Another reason that NFP seems to draw more of these debates is that it can be practiced “conservatively” or “fast and loose” So there is a built in ambiguousness to it’s employment.

If you set aside the moral issues of contraception and just look at how it is employed there is not such a variance. Most people do not put a condom on at the END of the act to be more fast and loose with it. Or perhaps receive the shot in their big toe rather than the thigh or backside. But with NFP you can employ rules to narrow or widen the effectiveness. This lends itself to people perhaps using it without really having “serious” reasons. Like I have said before, when NFP is used in unquestionable circumstances you never have people questioning it, you never seem to have men complaining that they are like sex camels. You never have days or rules being pushed.

If a reason rises to life and death issues, the ambiguous part of NFP disappears. This tells me that while everyone defends their reasons and positions they vary, and the legitimacy varies.

I guess after four hundred posts in this thread, I have to ask this. Why do you care?

It’s an intriguing thought that a lax use of NFP, could somehow lessen the culpability of a couple using it for non-serious reasons. Since it could possible result in pregnancy, then it’s less sinful.

Aren’t serous reasons a binary - either they are or aren’t, as evaluated by the couple.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Another reason that NFP seems to draw more of these debates is that it can be practiced “conservatively” or “fast and loose” So there is a built in ambiguousness to it’s employment.

If you set aside the moral issues of contraception and just look at how it is employed there is not such a variance. Most people do not put a condom on at the END of the act to be more fast and loose with it. Or perhaps receive the shot in their big toe rather than the thigh or backside. But with NFP you can employ rules to narrow or widen the effectiveness. This lends itself to people perhaps using it without really having “serious” reasons. Like I have said before, when NFP is used in unquestionable circumstances you never have people questioning it, you never seem to have men complaining that they are like sex camels. You never have days or rules being pushed.

If a reason rises to life and death issues, the ambiguous part of NFP disappears. This tells me that while everyone defends their reasons and positions they vary, and the legitimacy varies.

Wouldn’t people bending the NFP rules due to not having a “serious” reason be actually abandoning the method.

I learned Creighton. Day 4 post peak is supposed to be infertile. If we are intimate a day prior, we have abandoned the method to postpone and used it to achieve.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I guess after four hundred posts in this thread, I have to ask this. Why do you care?

It’s an intriguing thought that a lax use of NFP, could somehow lessen the culpability of a couple using it for non-serious reasons. Since it could possible result in pregnancy, then it’s less sinful.

Aren’t serous reasons a binary - either they are or aren’t, as evaluated by the couple.

I guess after four hundred posts in this thread, I have to ask this. Why do you care?

I don’t know Paul? Why do you?

is it ok that I continue to post? Is there a 400 post rule I am unaware of?

Why do I care.

Paul, I care because people should care. You can see this by all the threads and debates about this subject on CAF. IF you tire of them or are not interested then you do not need to participate.

I care because for me, the inconsistencies that I believe exist in the NFP theology need to be logically reconciled for me to understand them. Perhaps this has happened for you. Perhaps it is not even an issue for you theologically. I completely understand that. I am sure that I am not the most theologically advanced person posting on here. But I am also sure that logically this is a stumbling block for me. I am also sure that while I taught NFP and “sold” it the way my parish and C2CL wanted me to I found it was detrimental to my marriage and faith.

If it is ok with you, I would like to continue to discuss this.

 

[MomaMary8]

MomaMary8 said:

“I homeschool and can travel with my younger kids at anytime”

But not the bigger kids, right?

Also, travelling is expensive and it gets more expensive the more people are going. That’s one of the issues I was thinking about. If I were travelling to my family, there’d be a plane ticket for each person travelling (I got my driver’s license in my early 30s, and am only a drive-to-the-grocery store and across town type driver). It would be a two hour drive to the airport, a four hour flight (more in case of connections) and then a four-hour drive to my hometown. Then, when I got there, I’d find that if I were travelling with a child between about 10 months old and three, the kids would have a lot of trouble sleeping in a strange bed. Bringing little kids and having them wake up repeatedly wailing in the middle of the night would be a heck of a way to “help” my afflicted family member. If I had that kind of “help” arrive for me, I think I’d send them home early.

“What if your 24 yr old and 28 yr old have babies 2 days apart and live on opposite sides of the country?? What if you have breast cancer treatments and can’t take off to visit your pregnant daughter?”

Do what you can do, obviously.

As I’ve mentioned, my mom had breast cancer at 41 and that’s just a little over 2 years from now for me. Cancer therapy is, as I’ve mentioned earlier, not great for unborn babies.

I think you are trying to borrow trouble, Xantippe. Creating imaginary scenarios, no matter how possible they might be is not a healthy way to discern the future. You must look at the reality of life to properly discern any situation.

And no, I would not bring my oldest children…the oldest is a legal adult and the next one will be so in a matter of days! They would be fine in taking care of the house and managing without me for a few days or so. Longer care? If really needed, we’d work something out I’m sure. As for longer care of parents, we’d move my parents closer, just like another woman I know who moved across country to live with her adult daughter. They did what they did…

As you said, you do what you can do giving the circumstances that are before you. My friend who had 2 grandchildren born the other day is first visiting the daughter that had her first baby and then driving across country with a few of their children to see the other daughter’s 4th baby. The family discerned the appropriate thing to do based on all circumstances at the time of the event.

I’m at an 87.6% risk for breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Luckily the latest news says I’m less at risk if I have given birth 10 times! livescience.com/43941-pregnancy-cancer-risk.html I post this article a bit tongue in cheek, but just to show how we can justify most of our choices with some such article some where on the internet. It is best to properly discern family life and the possible use of NFP with honest factors in real life (not imaginary scenarios) and with lots of prayer and help from the Holy Spirit. I am now discerning if I should have a preventative hysterectomy and/or mastectomy. I’ll have genetic testing done and review the test and family history with a trusted doctor and then discern if it is the proper thing to do. I will use my intellect and pray for wisdom and act with prudence. I hope you do the same in regards to your risk of breast cancer, but please don’t let it hang over your head like a black cloud. Numbers and risk factors are one thing, reality is another.

God bless.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Wouldn’t people bending the NFP rules due to not having a “serious” reason be actually abandoning the method.

I learned Creighton. Day 4 post peak is supposed to be infertile. If we are intimate a day prior, we have abandoned the method to postpone and used it to achieve.

I will refrain from the methods and how they are taught but in the classes I taught we were taught to teach couples different rules to “shave” off days of abstinence. We told people that most people only had to be abstinent 5-6 days a month. We sold this as 26 days of sex a month! Gee, how many of your contracepting friends can say that!!

"not so much the “bending” of rules but the employment of separate rules either for “advanced” couples or couples that were not endangering their lives.

You will acknowledge that a couple who faces death if the woman conceives practices NFP more conservatively than a couple that just doesn’t want the stress of child right now, right?

There is a scale of NFP reasons. But why are all reasons dealt with the same attitude.

“We choose to not have a child right now”

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I will refrain from the methods and how they are taught but in the classes I taught we were taught to teach couples different rules to “shave” off days of abstinence. We told people that most people only had to be abstinent 5-6 days a month. We sold this as 26 days of sex a month! Gee, how many of your contracepting friends can say that!!

"not so much the “bending” of rules but the employment of separate rules either for “advanced” couples or couples that were not endangering their lives.

You will acknowledge that a couple who faces death if the woman conceives practices NFP more conservatively than a couple that just doesn’t want the stress of child right now, right?

There is a scale of NFP reasons. But why are all reasons dealt with the same attitude.

“We choose to not have a child right now”

I only know the fundamentals for CCL or symptho thermal…but with Creighton, the day is either fertile or not. Relations on a fertile day = using the method to achieve.

So there isn’t any more conservative /less conservative protocol.

If you did sell it as 26 days a month out of 28 days per cycle, I would guess lots of people had fertile relations unknowingly.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I

If you did sell it as 26 days a month out of 28 days per cycle, I would guess lots of people had fertile relations unknowingly.

No, it was 26 days out of a 31 day calendar month.

I doubt many did have relations on fertile days because of this. Not because we told them it was ok but rather that many couples had their cycles down to this type of accuracy, which is bunk. I could go back through my closet and find the exact power point slides we had…

But have you seen my closet!?

If I do find it it will probably be under some clothes of my kids, Which is a tad ironic if you think about it.

Like a couple of weeks ago when my 4 year old was playing doctor with our Ladycomp…

 

[Bookcat]

A very nice summary:

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI (with footnote by Bookcat)

**497. When is it moral to regulate births?
**
2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons***; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

**examples of some serious reasons…(oh oh - non *serious reasons)

Want to collect expensive cars
Want to spend more time watching movies
Want to eat more ice cream (could not afford as much with more kids)
Want to buy yet another vacation home
Kids are evil
One hates playdoh
Ones spouse has bad breath
One wants more puppies
Pregnancy makes one desire pickles and oreos together
One’s tiny expensive sports car has only two seats
The stamp collection is not yet complete
Books are better than kids
One must look good for that high school reunion
Need more stuff cause ones garage is not full yet
One is waiting for the next despicable me movie

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

A very nice summary:

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI (with footnote by Bookcat)

**497. When is it moral to regulate births?
**
2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons***; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

**examples of some serious reasons…(oh oh - non *serious reasons)

Want to collect expensive cars
Want to spend more time watching movies
Want to eat more ice cream (could not afford as much with more kids)
Want to buy yet another vacation home
Kids are evil
One hates playdoh
Ones spouse has bad breath
One wants more puppies
Pregnancy makes one desire pickles and oreos together
One’s tiny expensive sports car has only two seats
The stamp collection is not yet complete
Books are better than kids
One must look good for that high school reunion
Need more stuff cause ones garage is not full yet
One is waiting for the next despicable me movie

I know people who think puppies are children…

 

[Bookcat]

I know people who think puppies are children…

They are.

dog children.

-the children of dogs…the offspring of the canine animal

(I imagine thought that the word children formally fits only those of human persons…but in a wider sense…)

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I thought this would be relevant to the discussion:

zenit.org/en/articles/just-cause-and-natural-family-planning

 

[PaulinVA]

I don’t know Paul? Why do you?

is it ok that I continue to post? Is there a 400 post rule I am unaware of?

No, of course not. As long as you keep putting quarters in the slot you can keep posting.

Paul, I care because people should care. You can see this by all the threads and debates about this subject on CAF. IF you tire of them or are not interested then you do not need to participate.

I apologize if I insulted you. My, “Why do you care…” was directed at what seems to be your and others’ desire to play gotcha with people who think they have serious reasons but you don’t think they do. I am all for discussions about what reasons could be serious and when, but I get uncomfortable when we NFP users start bashing each other.

I care because for me, the inconsistencies that I believe exist in the NFP theology need to be logically reconciled for me to understand them. Perhaps this has happened for you. Perhaps it is not even an issue for you theologically. I completely understand that. I am sure that I am not the most theologically advanced person posting on here. But I am also sure that logically this is a stumbling block for me. I am also sure that while I taught NFP and “sold” it the way my parish and C2CL wanted me to I found it was detrimental to my marriage and faith.

I think that there is a conceptual disconnect between our ideas of holiness when it comes to family size and the theology. Most of us think back to the 50s/60s as the golden age of holy, large, Catholic families. I will tell you, the faithful families were not large because they sought out many children, they were large because the rhythm method was not scientifically accurate. It was the best out there, but had it’s drawbacks. I was in a prayer group as a teen in the seventies and many of the married women were just praying for menopause. Not out loud, but you know what I mean.

I think that having four+ children is not for everyone. It takes special people to do that. The rest of us? I think that we limit because we have to to maintain our sanity.

Periodic abstinence did indeed lead to tension in my marriage. I think the numbers of days of abstinance per month is a different discussion than serious reasons, though.

If it is ok with you, I would like to continue to discuss this.

I enjoy our exchanges, even if we don’t agree at times.

 

[maryjk]

Another reason that NFP seems to draw more of these debates is that it can be practiced “conservatively” or “fast and loose” So there is a built in ambiguousness to it’s employment.

If you set aside the moral issues of contraception and just look at how it is employed there is not such a variance. Most people do not put a condom on at the END of the act to be more fast and loose with it. Or perhaps receive the shot in their big toe rather than the thigh or backside. But with NFP you can employ rules to narrow or widen the effectiveness. This lends itself to people perhaps using it without really having “serious” reasons. **Like I have said before, when NFP is used in unquestionable circumstances you never have people questioning it, you never seem to have men complaining that they are like sex camels. You never have days or rules being pushed. **

If a reason rises to life and death issues, the ambiguous part of NFP disappears. This tells me that while everyone defends their reasons and positions they vary, and the legitimacy varies.

This is true. I never hear my husband complain. Fertile is fertile. And if you are using NFP to avoid and you are having relations, you are no longer avoiding.

And if you truly have a reason to avoid, you aren’t pushing the limits.

 

[Xantippe]

PaulinVA said:

“Most of us think back to the 50s/60s as the golden age of holy, large, Catholic families. I will tell you, the faithful families were not large because they sought out many children, they were large because the rhythm method was not scientifically accurate. It was the best out there, but had it’s drawbacks. I was in a prayer group as a teen in the seventies and many of the married women were just praying for menopause. Not out loud, but you know what I mean.”

Yeah. The whole thing wouldn’t have fallen apart so fast in the 1970s if everybody was joyously having a big family.

I think there’s a bit of selection going on nowadays where we see proportionately more happy mothers of large families because the people who would have become unhappy mothers of large families take a different path (whether through licit or illicit means).

HoosierDaddy said:

“Most people do not put a condom on at the END of the act to be more fast and loose with it.”

I think a lot of people are playing pretty fast and loose with contraceptive use, hence the huge number of “unplanned” pregnancies that occur among contraceptive users.

“This lends itself to people perhaps using it without really having “serious” reasons”

Or alternately, thinking that they’re using it when they’re not.

“Like I have said before, when NFP is used in unquestionable circumstances you never have people questioning it, you never seem to have men complaining that they are like sex camels. You never have days or rules being pushed.”

Or at least, those men rarely post on CAF. I think their wives do post about getting pressure, though.

Think of what the CAF response to this would be:

"Dear CAF: My wife and I have been trusting God. She has had six c-sections in 10 years and the doctor says another may kill her and the baby. My wife says we need to practice NFP, but I have NEEDS. Do we really have to practice NFP? We’ve done fine so far. "

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

No, of course not. As long as you keep putting quarters in the slot you can keep posting.

I apologize if I insulted you. My, “Why do you care…” was directed at what seems to be your and others’ desire to play gotcha with people who think they have serious reasons but you don’t think they do. I am all for discussions about what reasons could be serious and when, but I get uncomfortable when we NFP users start bashing each other.

I think that there is a conceptual disconnect between our ideas of holiness when it comes to family size and the theology. Most of us think back to the 50s/60s as the golden age of holy, large, Catholic families. I will tell you, the faithful families were not large because they sought out many children, they were large because the rhythm method was not scientifically accurate. It was the best out there, but had it’s drawbacks. I was in a prayer group as a teen in the seventies and many of the married women were just praying for menopause. Not out loud, but you know what I mean.

I think that having four+ children is not for everyone. It takes special people to do that. The rest of us? I think that we limit because we have to to maintain our sanity.

Periodic abstinence did indeed lead to tension in my marriage. I think the numbers of days of abstinence per month is a different discussion than serious reasons, though.

I enjoy our exchanges, even if we don’t agree at times.

No, of course not. As long as you keep putting quarters in the slot you can keep posting.

Quarters! Oh man! I can’t afford to keep posting then. Well, I can’t afford to have another baby and keep posting…

I apologize if I insulted you. My, “Why do you care…” was directed at what seems to be your and others’ desire to play gotcha with people who think they have serious reasons but you don’t think they do. I am all for discussions about what reasons could be serious and when, but I get uncomfortable when we NFP users start bashing each other.

I assure you that I am not playing gotcha with anyone. All of my arguments all of my questions are honestly based within logic, morality and theology. Mixed with a splash of real world and real life. However NFP can and is used inappropriately sometimes, I think we should be able to put a label on those times. How that affects any specific person’s sex life I could care less.

I think that there is a conceptual disconnect between our ideas of holiness when it comes to family size and the theology. Most of us think back to the 50s/60s as the golden age of holy, large, Catholic families. I will tell you, the faithful families were not large because they sought out many children, they were large because the rhythm method was not scientifically accurate. It was the best out there, but had it’s drawbacks. I was in a prayer group as a teen in the seventies and many of the married women were just praying for menopause. Not out loud, but you know what I mean.

While I do not think about the 40s and 50s because A) I was not alive and B) It is such a small 20 year period in all of salvation history and theology of sex, you and I are at complete opposite opinions on what you are telling me. People on this thread have said women always have known about fertility, and now you are saying that pre WW2 no one knew about it.

I think that having four+ children is not for everyone. It takes special people to do that. The rest of us? I think that we limit because we have to to maintain our sanity.

1st sentence is of course true. The rest is not. It does not take a “special” person or marriage to decide this. Throughout all of history more than 4 kids has been the rule. Not the exception. Not to mention even in today’s world different cultures have way more than 4 kids. Muslims procreate at about 8 kids per family and mormons also have larger families. Not to mention African american fathers who have more than 4 kids or larger Hispanic families. The insinuation that only those of us who have 4 plus are “special” seems to imply that it is something unattainable my the majority. As a stay at home parent and homeschooler I am quite used to this view. “Wow, I could never do that” is the response I most hear either about staying home or homeschooling or even having a child. I am not a superhero, neither is the person who has 2 kids more than me.
The sanity aspect is usually less about actually having another kid and more about being insane about this world. Be it materialism, worries, or just plain old political issues in any country. Usually the difference between 8 kids and 9 kids is negligible. Which is why large family mentalities tend to see money or other reasons as serious as others. When I see a 2 kid family talking about how they don’t want anymore because private school is too expensive and then I see a 9 kid family with the mom pregnant that homeschools, I can’t understand the moral disconnect between the two.

Periodic abstinence did indeed lead to tension in my marriage. I think the numbers of days of abstinence per month is a different discussion than serious reasons, though.

True. tends to be something us guys notice quite often about NFP…

I enjoy our exchanges, even if we don’t agree at times

So do I! And for what it is worth it is mostly just on this issue that we don’t agree at times. I like it when I read your posts.

 

[Xantippe]

HoosierDaddy,

For you:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11931671#post11931671

Possibly trolling, but hard to say. All the mention of hellfire is unconvincing.

But to take it at face value, the thing I hate about this sort of situation is that a lot of times, I feel like if the couple had slowed down a little earlier, they would not be experiencing the current crisis. A little prudence can keep a situation from going critical.

HoosierDaddy said:

“When I see a 2 kid family talking about how they don’t want anymore because private school is too expensive and then I see a 9 kid family with the mom pregnant that homeschools, I can’t understand the moral disconnect between the two.”

I would have to reserve judgment on that, unless I were in a position to talk to each family in detail about their situations and to see how well the homeschooling was going. In a worst case scenario, it means mom going out to do her fun stuff while the older girls stay home and raise the family. (Apparently, my cousin’s ex-wife was one of those. One hears so much more after a divorce.)

We totally resembled the first family for a number of years, but in our particular case, the private school was a very good fit for our special needs daughter (I think our son could have been fine anywhere). (I had some less serious but similar issues as a child, and my life could have been so much better in a different school setting.) We’ve shelled out a lot of money for tuition over the years and I would caution other families from getting on the private school train, but now that we’re on it, we’ll probably ride it to the end of the line. Bear in mind, unless you know people really well, they won’t tell you all of the information that went into their judgment.

 

[PaulinVA]

While I do not think about the 40s and 50s because A) I was not alive and B) It is such a small 20 year period in all of salvation history and theology of sex, you and I are at complete opposite opinions on what you are telling me. People on this thread have said women always have known about fertility, and now you are saying that pre WW2 no one knew about it.

Well, understanding there is a fertile time and actually being able to use the information effectively are two different things. I think women might have had an idea about mucous changes and such, but applying that might have been hard. We know, as an example, that if we overlayed the rhythm method fertile days over our own charts there would be a disconnect.

1st sentence is of course true. The rest is not. It does not take a “special” person or marriage to decide this. Throughout all of history more than 4 kids has been the rule. Not the exception. Not to mention even in today’s world different cultures have way more than 4 kids. Muslims procreate at about 8 kids per family and mormons also have larger families.

Are all of these people healthy and happy? In the past, children died and mothers died in childbirth.

The insinuation that only those of us who have 4 plus are “special” seems to imply that it is something unattainable by the majority. As a stay at home parent and homeschooler I am quite used to this view. “Wow, I could never do that” is the response I most hear either about staying home or homeschooling or even having a child. I am not a superhero, neither is the person who has 2 kids more than me.
The sanity aspect is usually less about actually having another kid and more about being insane about this world. Be it materialism, worries, or just plain old political issues in any country.

I think you are slightly out of touch with people not like you. There are some people who are overwhelmed with one child. Some who have life issues. Some who can’t plan their way out of a wet paper sack and a family of mom and dad and two kids overtaxes their abilities. That’s real. Over the years I’ve actually talked to friends and acquaintances about this. For a lot of people, not only Catholics, life gets in the way of their idyllic plans.

You ARE special, in the sense that you are generously trying to live your life by taking on the responsibility for many little human beings. Not everyone can do that.

Usually the difference between 8 kids and 9 kids is negligible. Which is why large family mentalities tend to see money or other reasons as serious as others. When I see a 2 kid family talking about how they don’t want anymore because private school is too expensive and then I see a 9 kid family with the mom pregnant that homeschools, I can’t understand the moral disconnect between the two.

We are all trying to figure out our faith and work towards our salvation at the same time we are trying to figure out family size and other things. Sometimes people figure it out too late.

I do not think that the default for us is to have large families. I mean, when we talk about sex without regard to cycle time we know that 85 women out of a hundred will become pregnant in a year. Is it any more faithful to be a “providentialist” and pray every time that you have relations that you won’t get pregnant? As I’ve said, I think that most every couple encounters serious reasons to avoid before menopause.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…My, “Why do you care…” was directed at what seems to be your and others’ desire to play gotcha with people who think they have serious reasons but you don’t think they do. I am all for discussions about what reasons could be serious and when, but I get uncomfortable when we NFP users start bashing each other.

I think that there is a conceptual disconnect between our ideas of holiness when it comes to family size and the theology. …

Okay, I’ll tell you why I care. But first of all let me clarify, I don’t sit around negatively judging people who use or have used NFP. I grew up with wonderful Catholic parents who had only two children, and I know that family size does not equates with holiness. I’m certainly not throwing any stones at anyone here who has a smaller family or who uses NFP. I’ve defended the Church teachings that permits NFP use on many threads in the past on CAF.

Now, why do I care? Well, as much as I hate to discuss my age, I decided to “come out” here, on this thread: I’m, ahem, not exactly young anymore. I know, my typing makes me look 10 or 20 years younger, especially when I type stories about my 4 year old. But I’m, well, I’m old enough to be the mother of a 4 year old–and her much older brothers. Enough about my age–let’s talk about age in more general terms beyond mine.

If a woman is young enough to get pregnant naturally, society (and especially Catholics, who are suppose to be on the side of life) should not act as if she’s too old to have a baby. The idea that age *alone *is sufficient reason for a couple to not welcome another child strikes me as very wrong–it seems like a form of ageism. In many of these posts on this very long thread, people added far more things beyond age into the equation, such as physical and mental health, the need to care for elderly parents, the need to care for older children with disabilities, etc. But this thread didn’t ask about all those other things–it asked about specifically about age–maternal age. It spun off of a thread where a husband wanted more children, but his wife, who was in her late 30’s, insisted on using NFP for reasons she hadn’t made clear to him.

Many people *do *want more children, but they let themselves get talked out of it by societal pressures that tell them they are “too old”–when their biology says they are not.

That’s why I care. :twocents:

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

HoosierDaddy,

For you:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11931671#post11931671

Possibly trolling, but hard to say. All the mention of hellfire is unconvincing.

But to take it at face value, the thing I hate about this sort of situation is that a lot of times, I feel like if the couple had slowed down a little earlier, they would not be experiencing the current crisis. A little prudence can keep a situation from going critical.

HoosierDaddy said:

“When I see a 2 kid family talking about how they don’t want anymore because private school is too expensive and then I see a 9 kid family with the mom pregnant that homeschools, I can’t understand the moral disconnect between the two.”

I would have to reserve judgment on that, unless I were in a position to talk to each family in detail about their situations and to see how well the homeschooling was going. In a worst case scenario, it means mom going out to do her fun stuff while the older girls stay home and raise the family. (Apparently, my cousin’s ex-wife was one of those. One hears so much more after a divorce.)

We totally resembled the first family for a number of years, but in our particular case, the private school was a very good fit for our special needs daughter (I think our son could have been fine anywhere). (I had some less serious but similar issues as a child, and my life could have been so much better in a different school setting.) We’ve shelled out a lot of money for tuition over the years and I would caution other families from getting on the private school train, but now that we’re on it, we’ll probably ride it to the end of the line. Bear in mind, unless you know people really well, they won’t tell you all of the information that went into their judgment.

Wow just saw that thread! I’m gong with possible troll but I will probably bite. There are 3 or 4 posts on there I have something to say about. Including yours,

 

[Rau]

…
I care because for me, the inconsistencies that I believe exist in the NFP theology need to be logically reconciled for me to understand them. Perhaps this has happened for you. Perhaps it is not even an issue for you theologically. I completely understand that. I am sure that I am not the most theologically advanced person posting on here. But I am also sure that logically this is a stumbling block for me. I am also sure that while I taught NFP and “sold” it the way my parish and C2CL wanted me to I found it was detrimental to my marriage and faith.

How would you feel about this if you had serious reason to avoid? Would you practice NFP?