Maternal Age as a serious reason to avoid pregnancy

[thewanderer]

What is being discussed?

The making use of infertile times…not the cessation of marital relations.* The whole context is regarding the context of engaging in the marital act*.

There is not an obligation per se for a married couple to exercise the right to marital relations. There is an obligation to each other- yes (see St. Paul et al) -but that can be as I noted -without repeating all I wrote above - can be not exercised by mutual consent -and prudent judgment…(and there could be an obligation at times out of charity to keep the other from falling in terms of chastity) And there are even those who enter marriage itself -exchanging the right to marital relations but who mutually decided not even to consummate. A rare vocation -but it has and does happen. And of course there are those who do the same but after some time living a normal marriage life.

Indeed as I noted there are Canonized Saints who lived this way.

Of course there is nothing wrong with abstinence within marriage. However, if this abstinence is being used as a means of regulating births then it falls under the same restrictions with respect to the necessity of a serious reason as NFP. As I said, there really is no way around that. The Church’s teaching about the need for serious reasons is not that you need serious reasons for NFP but rather that you need serious reasons for “regulating births”. It doesn’t matter whether you use periodic abstinence while taking advantage of infertile periods or you just use periodic abstinence without taking advantage of infertile periods, so long as you are using abstinence as a form of regulating births you are required to have a serious reason. Complete abstinence does not require a less serious reason when used for avoiding children than NFP.

 

[PaulinVA]

Of course there is nothing wrong with abstinence within marriage. However, if this abstinence is being used as a means of regulating births then it falls under the same restrictions with respect to the necessity of a serious reason as NFP. As I said, there really is no way around that. The Church’s teaching about the need for serious reasons is not that you need serious reasons for NFP but rather that you need serious reasons for “regulating births”. It doesn’t matter whether you use periodic abstinence while taking advantage of infertile periods or you just use periodic abstinence without taking advantage of infertile periods, so long as you are using abstinence as a form of regulating births you are required to have a serious reason. Complete abstinence does not require a less serious reason when used for avoiding children than NFP.

I agree.

I will also say that at a certain point in the marriage, almost every couple has serious reasons to avoid. It could be advanced maternal or paternal age, it could be financial or practical, it could be emotional. I think that most couples are “done” before menopause.

 

[Xantippe]

thewanderer said:

“The Church’s teaching about the need for serious reasons is not that you need serious reasons for NFP but rather that you need serious reasons for “regulating births”. It doesn’t matter whether you use periodic abstinence while taking advantage of infertile periods or you just use periodic abstinence without taking advantage of infertile periods, so long as you are using abstinence as a form of regulating births you are required to have a serious reason. Complete abstinence does not require a less serious reason when used for avoiding children than NFP.”

Exactly.

NFP used to avoid pregnancy is simply abstinence, just on a smaller scale.

Catching up with the discussion, the case of early death was mostly brought up by HoosierDaddy as a sort of sci-fi example. He was suggesting that in time, we’ll know what everybody’s natural “expiration date” is, and so he was wondering if it would create an obligation to not have more children if you knew for a fact that they would be orphans in childhood. That was more a speculative question than a here-and-now question.

That reminded me of the fact that my mother had aggressive treatment for breast cancer when she was in her early 40s and I was 15. That’s pretty early–it’s actually rather earlier than the new guidelines for mammograms, which is to start screening at 50. I guess I have to add my mom’s early breast cancer to my list of reasons why not pursuing more children is a good idea. At 38, going on 39, I’m just a whisker away from the age my mom was when she had chemotherapy, a mastectomy, and a major reconstruction. Cancer treatment, needless to say, is not healthy for little babies.

I’m not sure that this is a complete list, but here’s a draft of my personal reasons for not trying for more children:

–38, going on 39
–already been pregnant four times, have three living children
–get very mentally fuzzy and ineffective during pregnancy
–have an 18 month old
–already have one mildly autistic child, have something like 1 in 7 chance of repeat. She had to be dressed for school and dragged to the car pretty much every morning until she was 8. The 18 month old could easily also be autistic to some extent–too early to tell right now–I found out at 6 with my mildly autistic child.
–my last two pregnancies in my later 30s were both very problematic and the last one immobilized me for half a year
–already had gestational diabetes, have something like a 50% chance of going Type 2 diabetic in the next decade or so
–already had a late miscarriage with bad medical and psychological effects
–could easily have lost last baby to pregnancy complications (had a 30% chance of loss going into 2nd trimester–in normal pregnancies, it’s more like 1%)
–weigh 226 pounds and a history of 40 and 50 pound weight gains during pregnancy (except during gestational diabetes, when I starved)
–mom had cancer with radical treatment at around 41 and/or 42
–my kids seem to take either nearly 4 years or nearly 4.5 years to potty train (an autism spectrum feature, I’m pretty sure)
–already see my podiatrist a lot

I wouldn’t say it was ridiculous or imprudent for somebody like me who wanted more children to try for more and there’s no 100% fatal for sure item on the list, but to me, trying for more looks imprudent and unwise. I will try to gratefully accept any future children that come my way, but I think we’re done trying for more.

 

[jazzy0710]

Look at Michelle Duggar. She never let age stop her

 

[Xantippe]

I should probably add a less respectable (but important) reason:

–will need to start working in order to pay for 18-month-old’s private school tuition, to contribute to college savings, and to otherwise contribute to family welfare.

 

[Bookcat]

thewanderer said:

“The Church’s teaching about the need for serious reasons is not that you need serious reasons for NFP but rather that you need serious reasons for “regulating births”. It doesn’t matter whether you use periodic abstinence while taking advantage of infertile periods or you just use periodic abstinence without taking advantage of infertile periods, so long as you are using abstinence as a form of regulating births you are required to have a serious reason. Complete abstinence does not require a less serious reason when used for avoiding children than NFP.”

Exactly.

NFP used to avoid pregnancy is simply abstinence, just on a smaller scale.

See posts above. Such is not the case. What I noted has been the long understanding in the Church - as can be seen in not only the lives of Canonized Saints but in various works of moral theology over time.

 

[Bookcat]

Of course there is nothing wrong with abstinence within marriage. However, if this abstinence is being used as a means of regulating births then it falls under the same restrictions with respect to the necessity of a serious reason as NFP. As I said, there really is no way around that. The Church’s teaching about the need for serious reasons is not that you need serious reasons for NFP but rather that you need serious reasons for “regulating births”. It doesn’t matter whether you use periodic abstinence while taking advantage of infertile periods or you just use periodic abstinence without taking advantage of infertile periods, so long as you are using abstinence as a form of regulating births you are required to have a serious reason. Complete abstinence does not require a less serious reason when used for avoiding children than NFP.

I already answered above.

And as I noted this is not something I am recommending - indeed it is a rather “serious” way to embark upon for a couple. Something to be prudently judged and discerned. With advice etc even. Not the normal route to take.

 

[Xantippe]

Bookcat said:

“What I noted has been the long understanding in the Church - as can be seen in not only the lives of Canonized Saints but in various works of moral theology over time.”

Those canonized saints were presumably not abstaining primarily in order to avoid more children, or that’s not what they were canonized for.

To rephrase and clarify, NFP to avoid children is just a micro version of total abstinence to avoid children.

I suspect that total abstinence to avoid more children was probably very common in times past. You could probably figure out roughly how common by studying old-time manuals for confessors.

 

[thewanderer]

I already answered above.

And as I noted this is not something I am recommending - indeed it is a rather “serious” way to embark upon for a couple. Something to be prudently judged and discerned. With advice etc even. Not the normal route to take.

No, you actually didn’t answer my point earlier. You brought up the fact that there can be good motivations for abstinence other than regulating births. This is true, and, as I have already said, of course such cases of abstinence do not need to follow the churches rules for regulating births. My point relates only to those instances when abstinence is used for regulating births. In these particular cases, seeing as they are cases of regulating births, the couple in question must follow all of the churches rules/teachings for regulating births, one of which is hat the couple must have a serious reason to avoid children. When used for regulating births abstinence without recourse to the infertile period must follow all the same rules and restrictions as NFP.

 

[Bookcat]

What I noted above remains the case. See the above posts where I went into detail on this question.

But again such is not what I am recommending.

Got to run now.

 

[Xantippe]

thewanderer said:

“When used for regulating births abstinence without recourse to the infertile period must follow all the same rules and restrictions as NFP.”

Yes–think of the fictional Scarlett O’Hara case mentioned earlier, where Scarlett imposes total abstinence on her husband because she doesn’t want more children. People who practice total abstinence in order not to have children need to have serious reasons, just as much as people who do NFP. Even more so, maybe, given the greater risk of extramarital temptations.

 

[Bookcat]

No, you actually didn’t answer my point earlier. You brought up the fact that there can be good motivations for abstinence other than regulating births. This is true, and, as I have already said, of course such cases of abstinence do not need to follow the churches rules for regulating births. My point relates only to those instances when abstinence is used for regulating births. In these particular cases, seeing as they are cases of regulating births, the couple in question must follow all of the churches rules/teachings for regulating births, one of which is hat the couple must have a serious reason to avoid children. When used for regulating births abstinence without recourse to the infertile period must follow all the same rules and restrictions as NFP.

The Teachings there are referring to when the marital act is engaged in during “infertile times” via NFP. They are not discussing this question.

The couple is not exercising their right to the marital act. They are not engaging it such at all. *Different matter. *

Bookcat said:

“What I noted has been the long understanding in the Church - as can be seen in not only the lives of Canonized Saints but in various works of moral theology over time.”

Those canonized saints were presumably not abstaining primarily in order to avoid more children, or that’s not what they were canonized for.

To rephrase and clarify, NFP to avoid children is just a micro version of total abstinence to avoid children.

I suspect that total abstinence to avoid more children was probably very common in times past. You could probably figure out roughly how common by studying old-time manuals for confessors.

NFP is not a mico version of total abstinence. NFP when used for serious reasons to avoid a new conception for now or ongoing - is the making use of only the infertile times in nature for the marital act. The marital act is still engaged in. One needs yes serious reasons for such.

Complete abstinence - or continence is not exercising the marital right to the marital act at all. There is not use of infertile times there is no marital act engaged in.

As the Saints - yes many entered into such a life of continence for spiritual reasons. As did those who have not been canonized.

And yes such continence was practiced in the Church too to avoid more Children.

In any case as I noted there is not per se an obligation for a couple to exercise that right and gift. Though they have an obligation to each other - they may with all I noted above. Readers: See again what I noted above so I need not repeat here.

As to the older works used by confessors - correct they note that a couple may forgo such (noting too things I noted about avoiding sins against chastity).

This is not something I would advise -nor normally do I think a couple ought to undertake such. It is a “rather serious” decision. And the mutual love and union expressed etc in the marital act is a normal part of the great gift of marriage.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The Teachings there are referring to when the marital act is engaged in during “infertile times” via NFP. They are not discussing this question.

The couple is not exercising their right to the marital act. They are not engaging it such at all. *Different matter. *

NFP is not a mico version of total abstinence. NFP when used for serious reasons to avoid a new conception for now or ongoing - is the making use of only the infertile times in nature for the marital act. The marital act is still engaged in. One needs yes serious reasons for such.

Complete abstinence - or continence is not exercising the marital right to the marital act at all. There is not use of infertile times there is no marital act engaged in.

As the Saints - yes many entered into such a life of continence for spiritual reasons. As did those who have not been canonized.

And yes such continence was practiced in the Church too to avoid more Children.

In any case as I noted there is not per se an obligation for a couple to exercise that right and gift. Though they have an obligation to each other - they may with all I noted above. Readers: See again what I noted above so I need not repeat here.

As to the older works used by confessors - correct they note that a couple may forgo such (noting too things I noted about avoiding sins against chastity).

This is not something I would advise -nor normally do I think a couple ought to undertake such. It is a “rather serious” decision. And the mutual love and union expressed etc in the marital act is a normal part of the great gift of marriage.

I would also add that especially in todays world that a couple take a decision like total abstinence or a josephite marriage with close spiritual direction. And I do not mean “we asked Father Smith about it once” But an ongoing spiritual direction.

 

[lily22]

ask St. Elizabeth

 

[Rau]

Of course there is nothing wrong with abstinence within marriage. However, if this abstinence is being used as a means of regulating births then it falls under the same restrictions with respect to the necessity of a serious reason as NFP. As I said, there really is no way around that. The Church’s teaching about the need for serious reasons is not that you need serious reasons for NFP but rather that you need serious reasons for “regulating births”. It doesn’t matter whether you use periodic abstinence while taking advantage of infertile periods or you just use periodic abstinence without taking advantage of infertile periods, so long as you are using abstinence as a form of regulating births you are required to have a serious reason. Complete abstinence does not require a less serious reason when used for avoiding children than NFP.

I agree. The practical effect of this is to say you “need serious reasons to have a small family”.

 

[Rau]

I should probably add a less respectable (but important) reason:

–will need to start working in order to pay for 18-month-old’s private school tuition, to contribute to college savings, and to otherwise contribute to family welfare.

I find nothing less respectable in this. I find nothing noble in proceeding with a bias in favour of quantity of children as opposed to the (perceived) quality of upbringing. The trade offs in this area are real and stark and we each will assess them differently.

 

[mommamaree]

I find nothing less respectable in this. I find nothing noble in proceeding with a bias in favour of quantity of children as opposed to the (perceived) quality of upbringing. The trade offs in this area are real and stark and we each will assess them differently.

I agree, too. My husband and I faced the same choice. We wanted to provide our children with a high quality Catholic education. We had two choices. Stop having babies and when the children were all headed off to school, I go back to work to help pay for it. OR, have more babies, if we so desired, but I would have to commit to homeschooling them with a classical Catholic curriculum. We chose the latter because that is what seemed right for our family. But most Catholic families are now faced with this tough decision of how to provide good Catholic education and what number of children they can afford. It is simply a consequence of decades of fewer vocations to religious life, combined with other economic factors affecting parishes and families. Marriage’s purpose includes the procreation and EDUCATION of children, from the teachings I have read. So, it is completely in alignment with Church teaching on marriage to prudently discern how to be able to best provide that education.

 

[PaulinVA]

I find nothing less respectable in this. I find nothing noble in proceeding with a bias in favour of quantity of children as opposed to the (perceived) quality of upbringing. The trade offs in this area are real and stark and we each will assess them differently.

Not only are we obligated to take care of our children and educate them, but the Bishops tell us we are obligated to provide for those less fortunate. When they say health care is a right, as an example, that places a burden on people to provide it.

There are a lot of (serious or just) reasons to regulate the size of a family.

 

[Xantippe]

PaulinVA said:

“Not only are we obligated to take care of our children and educate them, but the Bishops tell us we are obligated to provide for those less fortunate. When they say health care is a right, as an example, that places a burden on people to provide it.”

Exactly. In education, for instance, people at my family’s income level need to expect that they will have to provide for the less fortunate via the tuition subsidies that flow from the well off to the less well off as well as via federal programs (Pell Grant, etc.). I benefited a lot from that system as a college student, so I will try not to whine too hard about it now.

Likewise, older women (getting back to the maternal age theme) will often have even older parents and older in-laws to take care of, not to mention disabled adult siblings that they are responsible for the care of. A 40-year-old woman might easily have at least one older relative with dementia, particularly if she herself was the daughter of older parents. A family may find itself with more than just the members of the household to provide for. There was a recent thread, for instance, where a regular commenter (and not a troll, either, by all appearances) was finding that her family was struggling due to 20% of family income going to her husband’s parents along with 17% going to other giving (37% total). That’s an extreme example, but even more moderate giving could easily require a trade-off–either the family has to give less, or they will be unable to have as many children as they wanted.

Even just plain old charitable giving can be a pinch. Our budget does in fact have an extra private school tuition in it that could be squeezed out–it just happens to be going to charitable giving. And yes, our duty to the poor is if anything much more explicitly enjoined on us than a duty to have a large family.

By the way, I’m not sure that mentioning the Biblical examples of late childbearing are very helpful. Those famous elderly parents often had an angel telling them directly that God wanted them to have a baby, and all was going to be well. Couples deciding whether or not to have another baby late in life rarely have that kind of divine assurance. Also, come to think of it, Elizabeth and her husband and Abraham and Sarah were both parents of an only child, as far as we know.

With regard to what Rau has said about education, I certainly feel the decline in my ability to monitor and police my big kids with the appearance of their baby sister. I used to be totally on top of their homework, school needs, school projects and so forth (and all of that is really frightful), but these days, they’re mostly on the honor system and mistakes happen. The big kids do enjoy their baby sister and they are reasonably responsible, but I know that I’m not doing the stuff I used to do. These days, I’m mostly just hoping that they are doing their work, rather than checking everything, the way I used to. My supervision of their room-cleaning is also less zealous than it used to be. If we had another child, I expect I’d be even less effective with managing the big kids.

 

[thewanderer]

The Teachings there are referring to when the marital act is engaged in during “infertile times” via NFP. They are not discussing this question.

The couple is not exercising their right to the marital act. They are not engaging it such at all. *Different matter. *

I’m sorry, but that is very clearly not at all what is being said here. This is very clearly a universal statement about what is required for the regulation of births to be moral. One of the requirements is that the couple in question have a serious reason to avoid conception. A second one of the requirements is that moral means be used. The way this whole section is phrased and the fact that the moral means are brought in as a second condition for the morality of the regulation of births makes it very clear that this is a universal statement about the regulation of births, not something that is just about NFP.

NFP is not a mico version of total abstinence. NFP when used for serious reasons to avoid a new conception for now or ongoing - is the making use of only the infertile times in nature for the marital act. The marital act is still engaged in. One needs yes serious reasons for such.

Complete abstinence - or continence is not exercising the marital right to the marital act at all. There is not use of infertile times there is no marital act engaged in.

While I truly understand the distinction you are making I honestly cannot see how that would mean serious reasons are no longer needed to make regulating births moral.

As the Saints - yes many entered into such a life of continence for spiritual reasons. As did those who have not been canonized.

Of course it was, and that is a great thing when a couple is called to it, but it has nothing to do with the question at hand.

And yes such continence was practiced in the Church too to avoid more Children.

Again, of course it has been and will continue to be in the future. However, a couple still needs serious reasons to avoid children even if they choose not to make use of the infertile periods. To say otherwise is to say that a couple who out of pure selfish and materialistic greed want to avoid having another child will not in any way be sinning by allowing their selfish materialistic greed to close themselves off to the possibility of children, refuse to be generous in this area, and abstain indefinitely for the sake of fulfilling their greed. Since that is a preposterous claim it is clear that such a couple still must have a serious reason to avoid children in order for their avoidance to be moral.

In any case as I noted there is not per se an obligation for a couple to exercise that right and gift. Though they have an obligation to each other - they may with all I noted above. Readers: See again what I noted above so I need not repeat here.

As to the older works used by confessors - correct they note that a couple may forgo such (noting too things I noted about avoiding sins against chastity).

Of course this is true, I do not at all disagree with this, but it doesn’t change that abstinence for the sake of regulating births requires a serious/just reason whether or not the couple makes use of the infertile periods.

This is not something I would advise -nor normally do I think a couple ought to undertake such. It is a “rather serious” decision. And the mutual love and union expressed etc in the marital act is a normal part of the great gift of marriage.