H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Fascinating!
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
Your post also demonstrates that when we speak of “age alone”, we are in fact binding in age-related factors - In the case of your post, health risks to child and/or mother. It may sound like semantics, but it is clearly the health risks which are the true factor here, not the age per se. It just happens that with today’s medical science, the health risks are not able to be directly assessed reliably, so age is relied upon as proxy.
B
bitterhope
Guest
I just finished reading this entire thread. The thing that has hit me is the fact that so many people that claim to be pro life Catholics spend so much more time concocting ridiculous and far fetched scenarios than they possibly could be spending working to conform their will to the will of God. If the worse thing God sends someone is a new baby, that person is doing pretty darn well. For the first time in my life I am so happy that NFP does not work for me because if it did I may very well be trying to justify not having another baby because sometime, 20 +/- years in the future I may need to be at the birth of my grandchild. What happens when your child cuts ties with the family or never has kids of their own, and you didn’t have more kids so that you could help with…nothing? And the thing about caring for older relatives also makes no sense to me. Children are portable. Older kids can help out with the care and younger ones bring joy to the household. I know this because I cared for my dying father, and I just got back from a cross country trip where I helped my mom recover from surgery. There are too many crazy scenarios on this to touch on all of them. The thing that was most upsetting though was implying having “lots” of kids makes someone unable to cope. Yes, motherhood is hard, no one denies that. Sometimes God puts us into positions that push us well beyond our comfort level in order to help us grow and improve spiritually, to help us make it to heaven. Having one child may make a person develop PPD just easily as having multiple kids can.
I see a group of people that is accused of saying NFP is never ok, when in all actuality has only said what the Church documents also state–NFP should be used only in serious situations for just reasons. No one has stated it is never allowed, only that it can be used sinfully if done for reasons that aren’t serious. Every document states exactly that as well.
My question for the knowledgeable posters that were stating the church teachings is this:
My husband and I tried to use NFP for years simply because we were not interested in having more kids. It was not for a serious reason at all, we just thought that as married people we should get to decide what we wanted in terms of family planning. We had absolutely no success at it, but we did keep on trying. Were we sinful and do we need to confess this? I am absolutely serious in asking this. If we committed a sin by using NFP for reasons that weren’t serious we want to confess. Is the fact that we weren’t successful at using NFP to plan our family make it not a sin? Thank you in advance for any answers you can give us.
I see a group of people that is accused of saying NFP is never ok, when in all actuality has only said what the Church documents also state–NFP should be used only in serious situations for just reasons. No one has stated it is never allowed, only that it can be used sinfully if done for reasons that aren’t serious. Every document states exactly that as well.
My question for the knowledgeable posters that were stating the church teachings is this:
My husband and I tried to use NFP for years simply because we were not interested in having more kids. It was not for a serious reason at all, we just thought that as married people we should get to decide what we wanted in terms of family planning. We had absolutely no success at it, but we did keep on trying. Were we sinful and do we need to confess this? I am absolutely serious in asking this. If we committed a sin by using NFP for reasons that weren’t serious we want to confess. Is the fact that we weren’t successful at using NFP to plan our family make it not a sin? Thank you in advance for any answers you can give us.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Huh? Age as a factor alone does indeed bring into play many things that are relevant simply because of age. You can’t divorce age from it’s reasons.
I think your premise is the same as saying that jumping out of a tenth-floor window will not kill you - it’s the sudden stop at the end that is the true factor. The jumping out of the window, though, brings into play the associated effect of the sudden stop. They are linked.
R
Rau
Guest
“Age and health risks” are not what everyone means when they say “age alone”. Some are thinking about the burden of having kids at home when they are sixty.
If “Age alone” is the window, health risks arising from age is seen by some as the 10th floor window.
You can and must separate the issues because not everyone binds the same things to age in their mind, and thus in conversation, people talk at cross-purposes. And in due course, even the health risks may become assessable per couple - making the “age alone” notion quite redundant.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
From Humanae Vitae
If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
**
16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.
If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
**
R
Rau
Guest
The pope may have thought that, and if so, I respectfully suggest he was in error. Married persons who will employ, or are employing NFP know what they are taking on.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Rau said:
“And in due course, even the health risks may become assessable per couple - making the “age alone” notion quite redundant.”
Yes.
We’re definitely not there yet, though.
bitterhope said:
“For the first time in my life I am so happy that NFP does not work for me because if it did I may very well be trying to justify not having another baby because sometime, 20 +/- years in the future I may need to be at the birth of my grandchild.”
I was imagining cases where both the mother and daughter are simultaneously (or nearly simultaneously) of childbearing age, not projecting 20 years into the future. If one is 45 and has a 20-year-old daughter who is engaged and would like to start a family right away, it’s not at all theoretical.
“What happens when your child cuts ties with the family or never has kids of their own, and you didn’t have more kids so that you could help with…nothing?”
I have three kids at this point. If none of the three wants to have a relationship with me in adulthood, I won’t have anybody to blame for that but myself.
“The thing that was most upsetting though was implying having “lots” of kids makes someone unable to cope.”
Lots of kids makes some people unable to cope. Others crack up with three, or two, or one. These days the mothers of really big families are often people who are quite pleased with having a large family (which would necessarily have been the case 100 years ago). The women who aren’t coping well tend to bow out before they hit the really big numbers (8, 9, 10, whatever). You can read about them not coping in various CAF threads and see them in real life.
Every material has its breaking point.
As I’ve mentioned earlier on this thread, years ago, when I was struggling terribly with a three-year-old (who would later be diagnosed with moderate autism) and an older baby while visiting far-away family, I remember one of the grandpas disapprovingly saying, “How can Xantippe be having so much trouble with two kids? Lots of women have five and do just fine.” (He himself had had only two very widely spaced children and lots of grandma help and was, needless to say, a guy.)
So, let’s just say that one of my pet peeves is people who think that others can’t possibly be struggling.
“Children are portable.”
Some are, some aren’t. I find the 10 month old-3 year set very unpleasant to do air travel with (as does everybody in close proximity), and I am hoping never to have to fly with a child of that age ever again.
Just managing the carseats in airports and strange cars is a huge pain, and an improperly installed carseat (which could easily happen when installing it under time pressure in a strange car) is potentially a danger to the child.
“Having one child may make a person develop PPD just easily as having multiple kids can.”
But with multiple kids, one can have it over and over again.
“My husband and I tried to use NFP for years simply because we were not interested in having more kids. It was not for a serious reason at all, we just thought that as married people we should get to decide what we wanted in terms of family planning. We had absolutely no success at it, but we did keep on trying. Were we sinful and do we need to confess this? I am absolutely serious in asking this. If we committed a sin by using NFP for reasons that weren’t serious we want to confess. Is the fact that we weren’t successful at using NFP to plan our family make it not a sin? Thank you in advance for any answers you can give us.”
Not being successful doesn’t make something not a sin (trying to murder is still sinful, for instance), but I suspect that you actually did have serious reasons at least some of the time.
Talk to your confessor.
“And in due course, even the health risks may become assessable per couple - making the “age alone” notion quite redundant.”
Yes.
We’re definitely not there yet, though.
bitterhope said:
“For the first time in my life I am so happy that NFP does not work for me because if it did I may very well be trying to justify not having another baby because sometime, 20 +/- years in the future I may need to be at the birth of my grandchild.”
I was imagining cases where both the mother and daughter are simultaneously (or nearly simultaneously) of childbearing age, not projecting 20 years into the future. If one is 45 and has a 20-year-old daughter who is engaged and would like to start a family right away, it’s not at all theoretical.
“What happens when your child cuts ties with the family or never has kids of their own, and you didn’t have more kids so that you could help with…nothing?”
I have three kids at this point. If none of the three wants to have a relationship with me in adulthood, I won’t have anybody to blame for that but myself.
“The thing that was most upsetting though was implying having “lots” of kids makes someone unable to cope.”
Lots of kids makes some people unable to cope. Others crack up with three, or two, or one. These days the mothers of really big families are often people who are quite pleased with having a large family (which would necessarily have been the case 100 years ago). The women who aren’t coping well tend to bow out before they hit the really big numbers (8, 9, 10, whatever). You can read about them not coping in various CAF threads and see them in real life.
Every material has its breaking point.
As I’ve mentioned earlier on this thread, years ago, when I was struggling terribly with a three-year-old (who would later be diagnosed with moderate autism) and an older baby while visiting far-away family, I remember one of the grandpas disapprovingly saying, “How can Xantippe be having so much trouble with two kids? Lots of women have five and do just fine.” (He himself had had only two very widely spaced children and lots of grandma help and was, needless to say, a guy.)
So, let’s just say that one of my pet peeves is people who think that others can’t possibly be struggling.
“Children are portable.”
Some are, some aren’t. I find the 10 month old-3 year set very unpleasant to do air travel with (as does everybody in close proximity), and I am hoping never to have to fly with a child of that age ever again.
Just managing the carseats in airports and strange cars is a huge pain, and an improperly installed carseat (which could easily happen when installing it under time pressure in a strange car) is potentially a danger to the child.
“Having one child may make a person develop PPD just easily as having multiple kids can.”
But with multiple kids, one can have it over and over again.
“My husband and I tried to use NFP for years simply because we were not interested in having more kids. It was not for a serious reason at all, we just thought that as married people we should get to decide what we wanted in terms of family planning. We had absolutely no success at it, but we did keep on trying. Were we sinful and do we need to confess this? I am absolutely serious in asking this. If we committed a sin by using NFP for reasons that weren’t serious we want to confess. Is the fact that we weren’t successful at using NFP to plan our family make it not a sin? Thank you in advance for any answers you can give us.”
Not being successful doesn’t make something not a sin (trying to murder is still sinful, for instance), but I suspect that you actually did have serious reasons at least some of the time.
Talk to your confessor.
X
Xantippe
Guest
bitterhope said:
“I see a group of people that is accused of saying NFP is never ok, when in all actuality has only said what the Church documents also state–NFP should be used only in serious situations for just reasons. No one has stated it is never allowed, only that it can be used sinfully if done for reasons that aren’t serious. Every document states exactly that as well.”
I see a group of people that is setting the bar for “serious reasons” very, very high, far more so than can be justified by official Church teaching, particularly as the Address to Midwives states that just reasons for avoiding are not rare.
Meanwhile, Humanae Vitae says, "“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”
The official Church teaching is very even-handed.
“I see a group of people that is accused of saying NFP is never ok, when in all actuality has only said what the Church documents also state–NFP should be used only in serious situations for just reasons. No one has stated it is never allowed, only that it can be used sinfully if done for reasons that aren’t serious. Every document states exactly that as well.”
I see a group of people that is setting the bar for “serious reasons” very, very high, far more so than can be justified by official Church teaching, particularly as the Address to Midwives states that just reasons for avoiding are not rare.
Meanwhile, Humanae Vitae says, "“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”
The official Church teaching is very even-handed.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
No, I disagree. Maternal age carries with it risks that apply to everyone. Just ask the Google.
I do understand what you are saying, though., The idea of advanced maternal age can mean additional things to some people, such as age at high school graduation, saving for retirement, etc. These are ancillary to age, or co-morbid conditions, if you will.
But, pregnancy gets riskier for mom, in general, as mom gets older. Some might not be deterred by the risks, others will.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
For myself being 44 almost 45…I know that most likely I wouldn’t be able to carry a baby to term, due to a past of miscarriage and premature birth. Also, I already supplement hormones (progesterone). So the idea of avoiding for me has nothing to do with grandparents, or savings in the future, or being too old when I pick the potential baby up from kindergarten.
I had my last at almost 40. It really isn’t uncommon in my area to have children in late 30’s early forties. In fact two of my little guy’s friends have older college aged siblings. I haven’t asked their moms their ages…
M
MomaMary8
Guest
Mary Gail, I think we are a great example of how time approaches each body at a different rate. I am your age or so and last gave birth at age 42. I have been pregnant once since then that resulted in a miscarriage. Am I done? I don’t know. I am not on progesterone, and I have only had 2 miscarriages and all my other kids have been full term babies. I have been abundantly blessed in my aging days and won’t be surprised if God continues to bless. me. My DH has had medical issues that prevented us conceiving for a time, but now I don’t know if I will conceive again. I might, and I might be able to go to term…I don’t know, but I do know I have no serious reasons to avoid pregnancy.For myself being 44 almost 45…I know that most likely I wouldn’t be able to carry a baby to term, due to a past of miscarriage and premature birth. Also, I already supplement hormones (progesterone). So the idea of avoiding for me has nothing to do with grandparents, or savings in the future, or being too old when I pick the potential baby up from kindergarten.
I had my last at almost 40. It really isn’t uncommon in my area to have children in late 30’s early forties. In fact two of my little guy’s friends have older college aged siblings. I haven’t asked their moms their ages…
May all of us learn to embrace God’s will as our own will!
X
Xantippe
Guest
I was just looking up some info on prevalence of IVF in the US and I came across this:
“The IVF success rate was significantly higher for women under the age of 35 compared with those who were older. Looking only at the IVF treatments that used fresh embryos from non-donor eggs, the number of women under the age of 35 who gave birth using IVF was about 40%, compared with only 31% for women between the ages of 35 and 37. Only 3.9% of 42-year-olds got pregnant as a result of IVF treatment.”
cnn.com/2014/02/17/health/record-ivf-use/
I was really surprised by how low the success rate is for 42-year-olds. That’s really, really low–under-35s have 10X the chance of IVF success of 42-year-old women.
Here’s another good source on pregnancy risks for the older mother:
humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/11/2433.full
From there:
“The study confirms our hypothesis that advanced maternal age is an independent risk factor for certain adverse outcomes in pregnancy. Gestational diabetes mellitus was significantly more common in the older age groups despite controlling for confounding factors associated with decreased insulin sensitivity such as ethnicity and obesity in the logistic regression model.”
“The greatest differences between older women and controls were identified in the mode of delivery. One possible explanation is that obstetricians may have a lower threshold for intervention in older women. An alternative explanation is that myometrial function deteriorates with age (Rosenthal and Paterson Brown, 1998). This mechanism may also be relevant to the increased age-related risk of breech presentation and postpartum haemorrhage, as uterine atony is the most common cause of postpartum haemorrhage.”
“There was a wider distribution of birthweight in the older women. The increased likelihood of older women delivering a small for gestational age baby may be related to poorer placental perfusion or transplacental flux of nutrients…”
“The risk of stillbirth was significantly higher in the older women.”*
“The IVF success rate was significantly higher for women under the age of 35 compared with those who were older. Looking only at the IVF treatments that used fresh embryos from non-donor eggs, the number of women under the age of 35 who gave birth using IVF was about 40%, compared with only 31% for women between the ages of 35 and 37. Only 3.9% of 42-year-olds got pregnant as a result of IVF treatment.”
cnn.com/2014/02/17/health/record-ivf-use/
I was really surprised by how low the success rate is for 42-year-olds. That’s really, really low–under-35s have 10X the chance of IVF success of 42-year-old women.
Here’s another good source on pregnancy risks for the older mother:
humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/11/2433.full
From there:
“The study confirms our hypothesis that advanced maternal age is an independent risk factor for certain adverse outcomes in pregnancy. Gestational diabetes mellitus was significantly more common in the older age groups despite controlling for confounding factors associated with decreased insulin sensitivity such as ethnicity and obesity in the logistic regression model.”
“The greatest differences between older women and controls were identified in the mode of delivery. One possible explanation is that obstetricians may have a lower threshold for intervention in older women. An alternative explanation is that myometrial function deteriorates with age (Rosenthal and Paterson Brown, 1998). This mechanism may also be relevant to the increased age-related risk of breech presentation and postpartum haemorrhage, as uterine atony is the most common cause of postpartum haemorrhage.”
“There was a wider distribution of birthweight in the older women. The increased likelihood of older women delivering a small for gestational age baby may be related to poorer placental perfusion or transplacental flux of nutrients…”
“The risk of stillbirth was significantly higher in the older women.”*
Mary_Gail_36
New member
My grandmother had just one surviving child at 46. My dad. She lived to be 103. She married my Grandfather when she was 44 after having been widowed. Her first marriage was at 16, and she had no children. My Grandfather had 3 with his first wife. She was only 30 when she passed away.
I guess they weren’t expecting to be blessed at their age, but my Grandparents were very kind and gentle parents. My dad was very much loved.
My Dad was 43 when my sister was born, and he died a few weeks after her 21’st birthday.
B
bitterhope
Guest
No one has set the bar very, very high. We are not some extraordinary breed of super human. Many of us did not choose to have large families but we realize as life happens we must learn to go with it and adjust. It can easily be said that many people just choose not to stretch in any sort of way that causes discomfort. Both of the addresses that you mention say the same thing with different wording. The fact that people are reading different things from each is silly. Being generous in family size is the same thing as needing serious reasons to avoid children. Everyone has acknowledged that if serious reasons exist, NFP is permissible. Being uncomfortable is not a serious reason, being stressed to the point of mental illness IS a serious reason. And every mother I know that has experienced PPD did not have multiple pregnancies. They stopped having kids, realizing that it is a good idea to take care of themselves and families. If you want to use extreme news stories as examples, why not use the more common examples of moms with one or two kids instead? These are much more common.
And yes I am going to confess because we did not have any serious reasons at all. I can assure you that the only reasons we tried to prevent pregnancy was so we didn’t need to listen to the people in the real world tell us how irresponsible it is to have kids at our ages, or so soon after marriage, or so close in age, or more than the number of hands we have, or when dad is gone so often, and all the many reasons we are told on a daily basis. I’m sorry you experienced a relative say something inappropriate, it was uncaring of him. Having gone through that you should understand the reasons we don’t appreciate the scenarios you are putting out there. We haven’t heard these things from a relative at some point, we hear them daily from strangers at Walmart, from drs, from family, from news agencies, from movies and tv, and from the NFP instructors in our diocese. It happens all the time and everywhere. Your family is picture perfect in the eyes of the world and no one in any parish or at a school or anywhere in public really questions why you only have two or three. If you are getting negative comments I don’t know where from. If people are asking you why you don’t have more than two kids, then you are the first person I have met to be asked that.
And one thing your scenarios seem to overlook is the fact that mothers having babies around the same time as their older daughters normally have multiple kids. Siblings in large families usually help each other out and enjoy being there for each other. I’m not the youngest of my moms kids, but there are several grand kids older than me and the younger siblings. Yes, I have nieces and nephews older than me, and one that is two months younger than me. We are much more likely to want help from our siblings than our parents and we are always available to help each other out. Please stop trying to concoct silly scenarios that really show you have no idea about the dynamics of real life large, happy, PRO LIFE families and how we actually live.
X
Xantippe
Guest
bitterhope said:
“Being uncomfortable is not a serious reason, being stressed to the point of mental illness IS a serious reason.”
So, we don’t get to use NFP until we’re mentally ill?
That’s setting the bar pretty high again.
“And every mother I know that has experienced PPD did not have multiple pregnancies. They stopped having kids, realizing that it is a good idea to take care of themselves and families. If you want to use extreme news stories as examples, why not use the more common examples of moms with one or two kids instead? These are much more common.”
Exactly.
Mothers can be overstretched with only one or two children.
That was exactly my point.
“Having gone through that you should understand the reasons we don’t appreciate the scenarios you are putting out there.”
I have have been arguing for a generous interpretation of “serious reasons,” in particular for maternal age. That’s where those scenarios are coming from–I would like it to be recognized that maternal age is, in fact, a serious reason.
As I have said at least once before in this thread, “serious reasons” does not mean that it is wrong to have a baby, but it does mean that it is licit to use NFP.
That is all that I have been arguing for–a generous interpretation of “serious reasons”.
“Your family is picture perfect in the eyes of the world and no one in any parish or at a school or anywhere in public really questions why you only have two or three.”
Picture perfect? Really? My oldest child is mildly autistic. When she was younger (especially at 6 and 7), I dreaded phone calls and emails from school, because I feared that she had committed some new atrocity at school and was going to be expelled. (That didn’t happen, the school has worked with us patiently through years of difficulties, and so we happily (or almost happily) pay the private school tuition, as it is not an easy thing to find an appropriate school placement for even a mildly autistic child.) In 1st grade, she’d sit and moan loudly through class, and there have been many other embarrassing episodes over the years. I remember one concert where she was with her class–all the other children were just fine, but she was pretzeling herself non-stop. And at church, I was terribly embarrassed at the fact that she couldn’t sit up straight in the pew but would be slumped over (due to poor core strength, as I’ve since learned). I’ve gotten over that, and she’s gotten better (due to maturation and lots of expensive and time-consuming therapy), but I know all about not being picture perfect. There were years when I felt so embarrassed at school, because I felt like everybody knew that there was something wrong with my child.
As I’ve said previously, there’s a 1 in 7 chance of having more autistic children if one already has one. If one has two (which is not uncommon), the chances are even higher. (I forget what the exact numbers are.)
“Please stop trying to concoct silly scenarios that really show you have no idea about the dynamics of real life large, happy, PRO LIFE families and how we actually live.”
I’m not talking about your family or people like you. I’m talking about me and people like me.
I think it is wrong to urge people to act against their better judgment and I think it is wrong to insist upon a rigoristic reading of Church documents that are actually very humane and elastic.
Again, here’s my person list of reasons (which for me are serious):
–38, almost 39
–one mildly autistic child
–one middle child who is always a little neglected, because he’s easy
–one 18 month old
–miscarried at 13 weeks at 36, very long hard recovery, both physically and psychologically
–rough pregnancy at 37, subchorionic hematoma with bleeding, short bedrest, physical restrictions during second trimester, gestational diabetes during third, sciatica during third
–my doctor said I have a 50% chance of going diabetic in the next decade
–I currently weigh 223 pounds and I normally gain 40-50 pounds during pregnancy (although I didn’t during my last pregnancy, when I was half starved)
–I’ve been seeing a lot of my podiatrist, and there’s been some talk of foot surgery. He’d also like to see me lose a bunch of weight.
–my mom had breast cancer around 41/42
“Being uncomfortable is not a serious reason, being stressed to the point of mental illness IS a serious reason.”
So, we don’t get to use NFP until we’re mentally ill?
That’s setting the bar pretty high again.
“And every mother I know that has experienced PPD did not have multiple pregnancies. They stopped having kids, realizing that it is a good idea to take care of themselves and families. If you want to use extreme news stories as examples, why not use the more common examples of moms with one or two kids instead? These are much more common.”
Exactly.
Mothers can be overstretched with only one or two children.
That was exactly my point.
“Having gone through that you should understand the reasons we don’t appreciate the scenarios you are putting out there.”
I have have been arguing for a generous interpretation of “serious reasons,” in particular for maternal age. That’s where those scenarios are coming from–I would like it to be recognized that maternal age is, in fact, a serious reason.
As I have said at least once before in this thread, “serious reasons” does not mean that it is wrong to have a baby, but it does mean that it is licit to use NFP.
That is all that I have been arguing for–a generous interpretation of “serious reasons”.
“Your family is picture perfect in the eyes of the world and no one in any parish or at a school or anywhere in public really questions why you only have two or three.”
Picture perfect? Really? My oldest child is mildly autistic. When she was younger (especially at 6 and 7), I dreaded phone calls and emails from school, because I feared that she had committed some new atrocity at school and was going to be expelled. (That didn’t happen, the school has worked with us patiently through years of difficulties, and so we happily (or almost happily) pay the private school tuition, as it is not an easy thing to find an appropriate school placement for even a mildly autistic child.) In 1st grade, she’d sit and moan loudly through class, and there have been many other embarrassing episodes over the years. I remember one concert where she was with her class–all the other children were just fine, but she was pretzeling herself non-stop. And at church, I was terribly embarrassed at the fact that she couldn’t sit up straight in the pew but would be slumped over (due to poor core strength, as I’ve since learned). I’ve gotten over that, and she’s gotten better (due to maturation and lots of expensive and time-consuming therapy), but I know all about not being picture perfect. There were years when I felt so embarrassed at school, because I felt like everybody knew that there was something wrong with my child.
As I’ve said previously, there’s a 1 in 7 chance of having more autistic children if one already has one. If one has two (which is not uncommon), the chances are even higher. (I forget what the exact numbers are.)
“Please stop trying to concoct silly scenarios that really show you have no idea about the dynamics of real life large, happy, PRO LIFE families and how we actually live.”
I’m not talking about your family or people like you. I’m talking about me and people like me.
I think it is wrong to urge people to act against their better judgment and I think it is wrong to insist upon a rigoristic reading of Church documents that are actually very humane and elastic.
Again, here’s my person list of reasons (which for me are serious):
–38, almost 39
–one mildly autistic child
–one middle child who is always a little neglected, because he’s easy
–one 18 month old
–miscarried at 13 weeks at 36, very long hard recovery, both physically and psychologically
–rough pregnancy at 37, subchorionic hematoma with bleeding, short bedrest, physical restrictions during second trimester, gestational diabetes during third, sciatica during third
–my doctor said I have a 50% chance of going diabetic in the next decade
–I currently weigh 223 pounds and I normally gain 40-50 pounds during pregnancy (although I didn’t during my last pregnancy, when I was half starved)
–I’ve been seeing a lot of my podiatrist, and there’s been some talk of foot surgery. He’d also like to see me lose a bunch of weight.
–my mom had breast cancer around 41/42
L
leonie
Guest
Glad I didn’t read this thread a year ago.
Just had a baby three weeks ago. I am 44 and my husband is 46.
Very healthy baby. The pregnancy was free of complications, but I confess it was draining physically.
I really don’t have anything better to do. It’s the best thing I will do in my life: bring up children and teach them to love God.
Just had a baby three weeks ago. I am 44 and my husband is 46.
Very healthy baby. The pregnancy was free of complications, but I confess it was draining physically.
I really don’t have anything better to do. It’s the best thing I will do in my life: bring up children and teach them to love God.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
So… is it time yet to agree with me that the Church has decided to leave it up to couples and their well-formed consciences for a reason?
We’ve got people leveling charges that Catholic men and women who decline to have sex sometimes are not sufficiently pro-life. We’ve got others feeling like they have to lay out all of their reasons on the table to justify themselves to random people on the Internet.
Folks, this is not a thread topic that ever has a positive ending. The doctrine is what it is. And like the doctrine of the Real Presence, the justice of a living wage, the forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of the body at the Second Coming, it was defined as it is with guidance of the Holy Spirit and for good reason.
We’ve got people leveling charges that Catholic men and women who decline to have sex sometimes are not sufficiently pro-life. We’ve got others feeling like they have to lay out all of their reasons on the table to justify themselves to random people on the Internet.
Folks, this is not a thread topic that ever has a positive ending. The doctrine is what it is. And like the doctrine of the Real Presence, the justice of a living wage, the forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of the body at the Second Coming, it was defined as it is with guidance of the Holy Spirit and for good reason.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
- Status