NFP marketing, is promoting it right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ByWhatAuthority
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catholics are not providentialists.

It is not a mystery how children are conceived. If there are relations during the fertile time, over a year the odds are you will get pregnant.

We are cocreators with God. He doesn’t just “give us children”.
 
Playing russian roullet with the welfare/health/life of a woman/mother does not come from God.
There is a mother and her son who are alive and well today that would probably disagree with you. She views her life and her sons as a gift given by God. The doctors all disagreed. They told her not to get pregnant. Then they wanted her to abort her son. Good thing she didn’t listen and instead, trusted in God.
 
40.png
Walking_Home:
Playing russian roullet with the welfare/health/life of a woman/mother does not come from God.
There is a mother and her son who are alive and well today that would probably disagree with you. She views her life and her sons as a gift given by God. The doctors all disagreed. They told her not to get pregnant. Then they wanted her to abort her son. Good thing she didn’t listen and instead, trusted in God.
Now you are “adding” to the story with the abortion angle. Not surprising at all.

And a woman who listens to people like you – can end up dead. And her death will be on you and those like you.
 
Last edited:
I’m not giving medical advice, lol!!! I am only standing by the Churches position that babies are blessing to be accepted loving from God.
 
Here’s the thing: in the US today, everything from housing to car prices to health care is based on the idea of a two-income family. At the same time, the Church tends to promote the stay-at-home mom as the model for a lot of families.

Furthermore, while I have heard a lot of sermons (I grew up trad) about how “Pope Pius X was the youngest of ten kids and grew up in a one-room, dirt-floored cottage, so no one in America can claim poverty as a reason not to have a big family,” that never, somehow, takes into account the sheer amount of stuff that the modern family does genuinely need in order to function. And I’m not talking luxuries, here: I’m talking about the couple who I knew well who were living in a tiny apartment, two small kids, mom staying at home, dad working two jobs, one car between them, no smartphones/cable/luxuries, existed on the tiniest grocery bill I’ve ever personally heard of (like, eating the same dinner 5-6x/week in order to save money)–but according to some, they were “selfish” for using NFP to wait to have baby #3 until they could afford a car that would actually seat all three kids at once. They’re not a terribly unusual case in these circles.

If you have a baby, the baby will need diapers, whether cloth or disposable. Baby will need a car seat. You will need to be able to transport baby from point A to point B, whether on public transport or in a car. You will need to provide baby with health care–and if you’re like my friends, you’re in that tiresome income bracket of “too ‘wealthy’ for public assistance, but on the sort of insurance plan where the medical costs alone of baby’s birth will involve 20% of your annual income, and no, those newborn well checks aren’t covered at $250 a pop minimum, etc.” This is a bare minimum in terms of what babies need.

I entirely agree that babies don’t need the newest, shiniest thingy out there. I say this as someone whose kids sleep in a $80 portacrib ‘til they get moved to a big kid bed, who cloth diapers, who just “upgraded” to an 11-year-old minivan, who waits for kid clothes to go on sale for $1/item at the local kids’ resale shop before buying her kids clothes, etc. But they do have some very real needs, and ignoring them, or claiming that parents who want to be able to go somewhere as a family (church? Mom takes kids to the doctor?) are selfish for saving for that car that’ll hold three car seats is the sort of thing that drives people screaming from the Church. It’s setting an unjustly high standard, and one that the Church herself doesn’t set.
 
I’m not giving medical advice, lol!!! I am only standing by the Churches position that babies are blessing to be accepted loving from God.

It has been made clear where you stand — to disregard medical advise – and just leave it up to God.
 
I don’t define leaving the size of your family as “careless or dangerous” or unwise behavior. We make the promise to accept children lovingly from God when we make our vows. That is not akin to irresponsible or reckless actions made by children.
What of a woman who was advised to avoid pregnancy due to health issues, but got pregnant and died, leaving behind her older children whose father wasn’t able to care for them?
 
Now you are “adding” to the story with the abortion angle. Not surprising at all.
I thought that was in the repost… whoever reposted my old post must not have pasted the whole story. Sorry I made it more confusing.
 
Pro abortion people use that same argument all the time to justify killing a baby to save the mother. How sad!
 
It seems the Church today dosnt mind if Catholics think it’s up to them and not God how many blessing they receive. That lead me to say that may be the reason there are very few large families in our churches today… If you disagree, fine. I am not offended and I enjoy hearing you all try to explain your position.
I feel like there have been one or two threads on this subject on CAF in the past. How about looking at the old threads?

There are a lot of reasons that there are fewer large families today than in the past. I feel like this ground has been gone over adequately, but briefly:

–couples being older when they get married
–expensive real estate in many parts of the country
–medical care being more expensive


Total medical costs for a typical family of four are now nearly $25k, with the family’s portion being $10k a year.

–There are a lot of issues with US K-12 education. Catholic K-12 education is much more expensive today than it was during the heyday of large Catholic families. Furthermore, a lot of practicing Catholics and other Americans have (often valid) concerns about the safety and wholesomeness of their public school.
–What about homeschooling? somebody is going to say. Here’s a big problem–those big family Catholic moms of yesteryear did not homeschool, hence expecting homeschoolers of today to have large families, or expecting large families to homeschool effectively is not realistic (at least not as a social norm). There’s a reason why there was such a rush toward creating public and parochial schools in the US–namely that overworked mothers and fathers of large families were not up to doing the job by themselves.
– The labor market for unskilled workers in the US isn’t what it was in 1955. A person with a high school education in 2017 and without either a college degree or a skilled trade is going to have trouble supporting a family of any size today, let alone a large family. Low-income people in the US are less likely to marry, less likely to go to church, more likely to have children outside of marriage, and are more likely to divorce if they do get married. Combine these facts together, and there are some very valid (dare I say, “serious”?) reasons to think that loving parents need to put some effort into making sure that their teens acquire a college education and/or a trade.
–Furthermore, job security is way down compared to 1955.

So, yes, there are one or two factors other than NFP hype that are putting downward pressure on US family size.
 
But that is a real situation. The mom died. The kids went to different foster homes. What did the family get for “trusting God”?
 
Last edited:
Pro abortion people use that same argument all the time to justify killing a baby to save the mother. How sad!

So now a woman with a medical condition that should follow doctors advise not to conceive --is like pro-abortion-- wow.
 
It has been made clear where you stand — to disregard medical advise – and just leave it up to God.
Nope! Never said that, lol! I think finding a pro life doctor is essential for a positive outcome. So many doctors have a knee jerk response to health issues…no more babies!
So do your own research and don’t be afraid to get second opinions.
 
Last edited:
One thing for sure – for the welfare of my loved ones – staying far-- far away from your opinions.
 
One thing for sure – for the welfare of my loved ones – staying far-- far away from your opinions.
I never advised you to do anything. Just trust in God. This is getting silly. You guys are just snarky like me cause it’s getting late and you are probably tired. I’ll leave it at that and NOT advise you to get some rest. Lol! I’m going to bed. 😴
 
It’s no laughing matter – when listening to you can end up with a woman dead.
 
Last edited:
Pro abortion people use that same argument all the time to justify killing a baby to save the mother.
How many pro-abortion people are willing to abstain from marital relations during the fertile period, when their bodies yearn most for their spouse? I would wager NONE…hence their support for an action that attempts to erase what they already did [procreate].
This reminds me of a fellow that tried to say that “the NFP mentality” was akin to the “contraception mentality”. I asked him some questions that he never was willing to answer. Maybe you’d like to take a stab at it, if your thinking is akin to his? Here what I originally sent to him [questions will be at the end]:

“If that’s the feeling you have gotten from NFP users, then I wager you have not met very many. Because, of the HUNDREDS of couples I know who use it, this is simply not the case. Couples who use NFP don’t get any enjoyment, that I have ever noticed, out of having to abstain from the marital embrace during the fertile period, when sex drive is at its peak. NFP couples don’t celebrate having to postpone sexual intercourse; they don’t think that they get to have sex whenever they want…because they DON’T get to have sex whenever they want. They are ABSTAING from sex during the times when they MOST WANT each other. [And when they do get pregnant, I have NEVER heard of an NFP user going for an abortion.] I don’t know of ANY couple that [avoids intercourse during the fertile period] for a frivolous reason, and then smiles about it on top of that. [A show of hands here please: How many reading this get a thrill, to the tune of that had by contraception users, from getting to abstain from sex during the fertile period? Anyone? No? Well…we’ll give it more time and see if a few more people read this and can vote in the affirmative….].”
  1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place?
  2. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?
  3. Is it okay for a Catholic to NOT have sex, and is it okay for a Catholic couple to have sex purposefully during the infertile period? (Make sure you cite authentic Catholic Doctrine here. )
  4. How is avoiding conception by abstinence the same as an argument for killing a baby after it is conceived?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top