I believe that the worst thing we can do to another person is to have them born into a bad situation. That is an unloving act.
This is probably one of the worst arguments for contraception.
If being in a “bad situation” is so bad, then it follows that those who are suffering hunger, depression, emotional distress, injustice all ought to be killed to end their suffering. For what difference is there between the “loving act” of stopping people from being born into a bad situation and another supposedly “loving act” of taking them out of their misery by murdering them.
By this kind of reasoning we therefore advocate not only for contraception but for abortion should it so happen that the immediate prospect of the new human being is hardship.
I can understand this line of reasoning being proposed by materialists and atheists who see no other value to the human person other than the material body.
But even a cursory survey of the great men and women of history prove that it is not necessarily those who are born into wealth and “good” life who make the most contribution to society.
This is a profoundly myopic view of humanity and what human beings are about.
I am not sure I should have had the two children I did have considering the circumstances of their birth. I have never felt guilty in any way of using birth control, but I feel very guilty having brought children into the world to a bad family.
You did not put down your religion so I am assuming you don’t have any. But bad family does not have the last word.
When I was in high school, there was this big news of an mentally disturbed mother who inflicted some horrible physical wounds on her 12 year old daughter that as a result the daughter was left blind in both eyes (due to her eyes being gouged) along with other major disabilities.
A decade later, this same child was on the news again. Blind and disabled she was a happy woman who had managed to finish a course in social work and has dedicated her life to helping the disabled.
I had two daughters with a drunk and abusive husband. They both were C-sections. My pregnancies were fine, but delivery was impossible. I would have loved to have another child but the practical thing was to have my tubes tied.
Practical is not one of God’s names. But if you are an atheist, that point will mean nothing.
That way my daughters had at least one sober parent who would not die from complications of more pregnancies or deliveries of future siblings. For me to have another child would have been a selfish act for nothing but my own emotional needs.
To all intents and purposes, it was my mother who raised all of us 10 children. My father, though not a bad man was certainly weak and did not seem to be overly concerned that his children went hungry while he helped others to show off.
If they had gone by your practical solution, realistically, there should only have been my eldest sister and even that would still have meant poverty.
But thanks to a devout mother, who never ceased to trust in the Lord, all ten of us are here. All having completed a college education and now contribute to society. Growing up poor, it helped us to empathize with the poor.
To this day, at 82, she still lives frugally so that she may be able to help others. My brother is the same, preferring to live very simply so that he is able to help those who need financial help.
The point of our lives is not the practical things. The point of our lives is the Lord God and the Lord God’s desire for us.
When we take our eyes off God, then the “practical” things take on gigantic proportions. But when we focus on God, then we get the correct and true perspective. These “practical” things are nothing compared to the awesome power and tender love of God.
