When did children become an inconveniece?

[mini_me640]

Every couple discerns what is or is not responsible for them, based on their particular, ever-changing circumstances. **So yes, societal circumstances that make it easier or harder for parents to raise children would definitely affect parents’ discernment of God’s will–AND, I’d think, God’s individual vocational plan for each and every one of us. **I’m not saying that God’s will conforms to ours (indeed, sometimes He sends “surprises” that we have not planned for or asked for, but which are wonderful gifts given to us), but simply that it’s reasonable to say that His will for our lives is based upon the concrete circumstances of each one of our lives. I don’t think we can or should say that as a general rule, God’s will for Christian families in 2010 is to have fewer children–just that this very well might be His will for many Christian families in 2010, and that it’s up to parents to discern.

I agree. Another non-child example would be this: 200 years ago, the average person did not have the opportunity to obtain an education and choose a career. A man usually did what his father did, be it farming, carpentry, fishing, etc. Today, an average American has endless educational and career choices, and can discern their career based on their talents, what they enjoy, and God’s guidance. Does the fact that people in the past didn’t have this option means that God doesn’t will today’s individuals to discern and choose a career that interests them? Not likely. I would say that God’s plan for each of us does consider societal circumstances. Not that God’s laws change, or that God’s broader will for humanity changes, but how he works and guides us individually does differ in different times and societies.

 

[sharmin]

I have two questions. You seem to be an expert on this. How many siblings do you have? How many children do you have?

 

[ac_claire]

I agree. Another non-child example would be this: 200 years ago, the average person did not have the opportunity to obtain an education and choose a career. A man usually did what his father did, be it farming, carpentry, fishing, etc. Today, an average American has endless educational and career choices, and can discern their career based on their talents, what they enjoy, and God’s guidance. Does the fact that people in the past didn’t have this option means that God doesn’t will today’s individuals to discern and choose a career that interests them? Not likely. ** I would say that God’s plan for each of us does consider societal circumstances. Not that God’s laws change, or that God’s broader will for humanity changes, but how he works and guides us individually does differ in different times and societies**.

I understand what both you and Rach are saying, and I agree in a way. What I have a hard time accepting is summed up in the last few sentences up here. And in the last part of Rach’s post as well. It’s hard (in my mind anyhow) to reconcile:

a.) God’s broader will for humanity changing with society/cultural shifts with
b.) God’s laws don’t change.

Those two ideas seem somewhat contradictory to me; because of b., a. is not possible. (That’s just me tho, I don’t hold my own understanding as the standard for what’s true or not. )

 

[mini_me640]

I understand what both you and Rach are saying, and I agree in a way. What I have a hard time accepting is summed up in the last few sentences up here. And in the last part of Rach’s post as well. It’s hard (in my mind anyhow) to reconcile:

a.) God’s broader will for humanity changing with society/cultural shifts with
b.) God’s laws don’t change.

Those two ideas seem somewhat contradictory to me; because of b., a. is not possible. (That’s just me tho, I don’t hold my own understanding as the standard for what’s true or not. )

To clarify, I personally agree and that’s why I said that I DON’T think God’s broader will for humanity changes with anything, just as His laws don’t.

Copied from my post:
I would say that God’s plan for each of us does consider societal circumstances. Not that God’s laws change, or that God’s broader will for humanity changes, but how he works and guides us individually does differ in different times and societies.

I do think how that broader will is to be carried out in the plans for our individual lives differs depending on our cirumstances, culture, society, etc. I think of God’s broader will as humanity serving Him (including following His laws) and each other, and of course ultimately he wills for our Salvation and unity with Him. I personally think that the way in which we are called to serve Him and each other may change quite a bit with time and society (such as the career example from my prior post).

I hope that clarifies my point a little better Also just expressing my opinion, not that I consider it the final word

 

[mini_me640]

CradleCath;6784437:

What did she say to indicate to you that she was an expert? I must have missed that.

I missed it too and I’m the person that remark was directed at I thought these forums existed for us to discuss issues and express opinions

 

[SMHW]

It’s hard (in my mind anyhow) to reconcile:

a.) God’s broader will for humanity changing with society/cultural shifts with
b.) God’s laws don’t change.

Those two ideas seem somewhat contradictory to me; because of b., a. is not possible. (That’s just me tho, I don’t hold my own understanding as the standard for what’s true or not. )

I think sometimes we see the word’s “God’s will” and we forget that we have to consider both God’s active and passive will.

Consider how a parent looks at a child. We all want our children to live up to their fullest potential. But we don’t want our children to have to lie, cheat, or steal in order to do so if life’s circumstances would otherwise get in the way. Better children should live according to God’s law than live up to their potential. There is a conflict between what’s ideal and what’s right.

We know that God generally does not interfere in the natural course of human events and development. But I’m sure God is delighted when we live up to our full potential. But God would not want us to break his laws in order to do so. As our society changes, our ability to live up to our potential will ebb and flow accordingly. In a perfect world we would all follow God’s law perfectly and use all of our gifts. And everyone would want and have the perfect number of children for their particular families.

 

[ac_claire]

To clarify, I personally agree and that’s why I said that I DON’T think God’s broader will for humanity changes with anything, just as His laws don’t.

Copied from my post:
I would say that God’s plan for each of us does consider societal circumstances. Not that God’s laws change, or that God’s broader will for humanity changes, but how he works and guides us individually does differ in different times and societies.

Thanks for pointing that out, and I apologize for the mis-applying your quote.

I actually did understand it the way you had written it, but in my haste to reply I mixed the quotes around. So to clarify my last post…The part that I can’t get my own mind around is God’s plan for families as being influenced in any way by cultural and societal shifts. I can’t read that as being compatible with the fact that God is unchanging, and His laws are unchanging. To me, it seems far more likely that the cultural shift has affected individual couples’ interpretation of God’s will for themselves (again, generally speaking.)

Having children was, in general, more of a non-negotiable priority for Catholic families 100 years ago than it is now. And then in the Bible, fertility is always seen as a blessing and is never questioned by the individual couples’ based on their life circumstances being “not good enough” to foster children. Instead, they trusted God to provide and take care of them. I just see so much less of that kind of attitude nowadays, both with couples who use ABC and with some who use NFP. Simply trusting God is often seen as being imprudent. I’ve not only seen this trend, I’ve been there myself. I can’t see is as being a positive development in society.

 

[former_Catholic]

.The part that I can’t get my own mind around is God’s plan for families as being influenced in any way by cultural and societal shifts.

100 years ago Great-Grandparents had 8 kids on one side, and 6 on the other. Thanks to the lack of modern sanitation, safety standards, a reasonably functional society, and modern health care, 3 of those kids survived to adulthood on one side, and 2 survived on the other.
In recent years, thanks to modern sanitation, safety, a reasonably functional society, and health care, their great-grandchildren had 2 or 3 kids that all grew to adulthood.
Shrug.
So what’s the difference? What’s this big societal shift? I’m not seeing it except that there are a whole heck of a lot fewer gravestones these days with childrens’ names and dates on them than there used to be.

 

[mini_me640]

Thanks for pointing that out, and I apologize for the mis-applying your quote.

I actually did understand it the way you had written it, but in my haste to reply I mixed the quotes around. So to clarify my last post…The part that I can’t get my own mind around is God’s plan for families as being influenced in any way by cultural and societal shifts. I can’t read that as being compatible with the fact that God is unchanging, and His laws are unchanging. To me, it seems far more likely that the cultural shift has affected individual couples’ interpretation of God’s will for themselves (again, generally speaking.)

Having children was, in general, more of a non-negotiable priority for Catholic families 100 years ago than it is now. And then in the Bible, fertility is always seen as a blessing and is never questioned by the individual couples’ based on their life circumstances being “not good enough” to foster children. Instead, they trusted God to provide and take care of them. I just see so much less of that kind of attitude nowadays, both with couples who use ABC and with some who use NFP. Simply trusting God is often seen as being imprudent. I’ve not only seen this trend, I’ve been there myself. I can’t see is as being a positive development in society.

I’m glad you understood my post I definitely agree that many people don’t trust God as they should. In my opinion, though, I don’t generally attribute better morals to people in the past. I really think having a large number of children was really somewhat unavoidable 100 years ago - I’m not even sure the “rhythm method” existed then. So there was really no way to space children, even if Catholic couples wanted to, without using a method that was contrary to God’s laws. And certainly there were times that couples would have wanted to do that, or needed to do that - I’m sure many couples 100 years ago wanted to limit the size of their family, but had no way to do so - we can’t know that they were all excited to have lots of children. For example, during the Great Depression, my paternal grandmother had two siblings starve to death. Yet another child was born into the family during the same period. Certainly, if there had been a way to avoid conception at that time (aside from total abstinence), it probably would have been advisable for the family.

As a side note, in general, societies that lose a lot of children to childhood diseases, starvation, etc. tend to try to have more children so that they ensure some of their children survive into adulthood. Thankfully, in modern Western society, we don’t have many children dying of childhood diseases anymore due to better medical care. Yet in impoverished parts Africa and India, their birth rates are extremely high compared to ours. Many people ridicule them for this (that they are too poor to provide for children yet continue to have them) but it really makes sense if you think about it - they want to be sure their family carries on to the next generation.

 

[rwillenborg]

I had one Barbie that lasted me my child hood, (even when I went through my Inquisition burning at the stake stage!) a

I laughed SO HARD at this! My sister and I didn’t go through any inquisition stage. We did, however, go through a French Revolution stage, and poor Barbie’s head ended up rolling…alot.

 

[rwillenborg]

They’ve always been inconvenient.
Was there a time when they weren’t?
So what? Most things I do in life are inconvenient. Most PEOPLE in my life - friends, family, spouse, are inconvenient.

 

[gretahope]

I’m glad you understood my post I definitely agree that many people don’t trust God as they should. In my opinion, though, I don’t generally attribute better morals to people in the past. I really think having a large number of children was really somewhat unavoidable 100 years ago - I’m not even sure the “rhythm method” existed then. So there was really no way to space children, even if Catholic couples wanted to, without using a method that was contrary to God’s laws. And certainly there were times that couples would have wanted to do that, or needed to do that - I’m sure many couples 100 years ago wanted to limit the size of their family, but had no way to do so - we can’t know that they were all excited to have lots of children. For example, during the Great Depression, my paternal grandmother had two siblings starve to death. Yet another child was born into the family during the same period. Certainly, if there had been a way to avoid conception at that time (aside from total abstinence), it probably would have been advisable for the family.

As a side note, in general, societies that lose a lot of children to childhood diseases, starvation, etc. tend to try to have more children so that they ensure some of their children survive into adulthood. Thankfully, in modern Western society, we don’t have many children dying of childhood diseases anymore due to better medical care. Yet in impoverished parts Africa and India, their birth rates are extremely high compared to ours. Many people ridicule them for this (that they are too poor to provide for children yet continue to have them) but it really makes sense if you think about it - they want to be sure their family carries on to the next generation.

This is very informative. I like this thread b/c not having been born Catholic it has opened my eyes to lots of historical info! Yet in the poorest of the poor nations, it’s sadly ironic, b/c it’s a viscious cycle: keep having more kids to ensure someone survives, but wouldn’t it stand to reason that having more ensures that the same cycle continues…that there’s too many people to be fed,…and the so on, so on. Just an observation. I don’t know.
I do know that as a person who was told I would never have children, and now b/c of medical help now have 3…and am completely over the top at age 48…that there’s no simple paradigm here or way to legislate this issue. I desperately wanted more children the older I got b/c I figured I’d never have them…sort of like thinking about food all the time when you’re starving.
No , I did not go through IVF—but if I had not gone through the medical investigations and surgery and may be dead b/c they found something that may have caused me to hemorrage to death at a later time.

…and after all is said and done I just wish I had more help and energy My youngest is special needs and b/c of medical help he’s here…where in times past he would have died. In fact, wasn’t it back in time, if a child was born w/ a deformity or whatever that they simply smuthered the newborn and buried him/her? Wow—
This may sound strange but…maybe kids are an inconvenience at time but so is marriage, work, and anything else worth doing! There’s a scripture in Proverbs that says (paraphrase) YES, THE STALLS FOR THE OXEN ARE A MESS, BUT MUCH GOOD COMES FROM HAVING OXEN!

 

[Rach620]

I understand what both you and Rach are saying, and I agree in a way. What I have a hard time accepting is summed up in the last few sentences up here. And in the last part of Rach’s post as well. It’s hard (in my mind anyhow) to reconcile:

a.) God’s broader will for humanity changing with society/cultural shifts with
b.) God’s laws don’t change.

Those two ideas seem somewhat contradictory to me; because of b., a. is not possible. (That’s just me tho, I don’t hold my own understanding as the standard for what’s true or not. )

Claire, I actually did say that neither of these things changes. What changes is how God guides individual Christians to follow His laws/broader will for humanity by willing different things for different people at different times in history.

This is what I mean when I say that “God has a plan for each of us”. Of course God has a plan for marriage, but the general call to Christian marriage given to all married couples must be translated into the concrete circumstances of each married couple’s lives. This is where discernment comes in–discernment of how God’s will for humanity and His laws governing marriage apply to our individual lives.

 

[sineadocall]

Hi i have four children i had them all before i was married two are the same father and one a differant relationship and one with my now husband and we hope to here nws of another very soon as we are planning baby number 5.I do think that not many ppl seem to be having big families these days it does mainly fall between 2 or 3 kids.I dont like the reaction of people when they here i have four children by the way i am 30yrs old and my children are 10yrs 9yrs 7yrs and 5yrs they were all planned and i dont think it would make a differance if they were not as we are all gods children and children are a gift from god.

 

[Rach620]

I actually did understand it the way you had written it, but in my haste to reply I mixed the quotes around. So to clarify my last post…The part that I can’t get my own mind around is God’s plan for families as being influenced in any way by cultural and societal shifts. I can’t read that as being compatible with the fact that God is unchanging, and His laws are unchanging. To me, it seems far more likely that the cultural shift has affected individual couples’ interpretation of God’s will for themselves (again, generally speaking.)

I don’t think anyone here is talking about God’s plan for families in general being influenced by cultural/societal shifts. At least that’s not what I have meant. I’ve been trying to say that God’s plan for individual families takes into account the concrete circumstances in which they find themselves. You are correct in saying that there is a danger that modern families can misinterpret God’s will and are apt to mis-apply His laws for their lives–I totally agree (and JP2 says as much in Familiaris Consortio). But I also think that we can say that God has different plans for each of our lives, a plan in which His laws and His holy will take shape in the “concreteness” of our individual lives.

God, in His infinite wisdom and providence, knows what we need and what our call will be before we are even born. He knows what society will be like as we try to make our way, and my point is that He will both challenge us to overcome our circumstances at some times and in some ways, while at other times and in other ways taking into account those circumstances in His will for our individual lives.

An example would be, perhaps, that God’s plan for a particular family includes three children and no more, because mom develops a dangerous medical condition in the labor and delivery of her third child that would make having any more children dangerous. From our perspective, we can sit and discern and say “yes, this is a serious reason to avoid pregnancy”. But in doing this discernment we are discerning what God’s will is for us–so we say that we think from God’s perspective, His will for our family is to not have any more children for X reason, and we are conforming ourselves to His will, as we are called to live it in this area of our lives. I hope that example helps clarify what I mean…

Having children was, in general, more of a non-negotiable priority for Catholic families 100 years ago than it is now. And then in the Bible, fertility is always seen as a blessing and is never questioned by the individual couples’ based on their life circumstances being “not good enough” to foster children. Instead, they trusted God to provide and take care of them. I just see so much less of that kind of attitude nowadays, both with couples who use ABC and with some who use NFP. Simply trusting God is often seen as being imprudent. I’ve not only seen this trend, I’ve been there myself. I can’t see is as being a positive development in society.

I’m not sure that it was so much a “non-negotiable priority” as it was an unavoidable reality. Everyone had a lot of children 100 years ago, not really only Catholic families. Honestly, I think we might be putting on a pair of rose-colored glasses if we look at people in the past who had large families and say that they “trusted God to provide and take care of them”. Sometimes there was an honest disposition of trust, but more often I think it was just the situation they found themselves in because of normal fertility and a married couple’s active sex life.

Also, it’s clear to me from studying the teaching of the Church that “trust in God” does not preclude the responsible spacing/postponing of births. Humanae Vitae and the writings of JP2 teach as much. Many other Christians view birth control as the alternatives of modern methods of birth control on the one hand and total “providentialism” on the other. These are not the alternatives presented to us by the Church, and it is not through a fault of faith that Catholic married couples in the 21st century prayerfully decide to responsibly space or postpone pregnancies. Providentialism with regard to pregnancy is not the only way a Catholic couple can demonstrate or live a life of trust in God.

“Simply trusting God” CAN and often DOES involve the use of NFP to avoid/achieve pregnancy. In the end, we have little control over when pregnancy does or does not occur (infertility has taught me that much… ), but we do have much control over the degree to which we place our hearts and futures in God’s hands, do not worry about tomorrow, and trust that He will provide for us according to His will.

 

[ac_claire]

An example would be, perhaps, that God’s plan for a particular family includes three children and no more, because mom develops a dangerous medical condition in the labor and delivery of her third child that would make having any more children dangerous. From our perspective, we can sit and discern and say “yes, this is a serious reason to avoid pregnancy”. But in doing this discernment we are discerning what God’s will is for us–so we say that we think from God’s perspective, His will for our family is to not have any more children for X reason, and we are conforming ourselves to His will, as we are called to live it in this area of our lives. I hope that example helps clarify what I mean…

Yeah, I think it does. That’s the problem with this conversation lol, all of us are speculating on God’s will and none of us knows if we’re right (how could anyone ever know that they’re right on that when speaking so generally??) so it’s kind of a hard conversation to have. But I think I do understand your viewpoint.

I’m not sure that it was so much a “non-negotiable priority” as it was an unavoidable reality. Everyone had a lot of children 100 years ago, not really only Catholic families. Honestly, I think we might be putting on a pair of rose-colored glasses if we look at people in the past who had large families and say that they “trusted God to provide and take care of them”. Sometimes there was an honest disposition of trust, but more often I think it was just the situation they found themselves in because of normal fertility and a married couple’s active sex life.

I kind of see “non-negotiable priority” and “unavoidable reality” as being not that seperate from eachother. Birth control was used even 100 years ago. If not ABC, which I know wasn’t so widespread as today, then there was abstinence and I think even an early form of the calender/rhythm methdod, altho I culd be wrong on the timing…not sure when that became public knowledge or allowed by the Church. (Might have been a bit more recent than 100 years ago.) Ultimately, if a Catholic family had children as God sent them without using any kind of birth control to space them or prevent birth, then they were trusting God, as I see it. Even if it was through gritted teeth because they feared the sin of using birth control and didn’t see any other option. Either way, they were obedient. That doesn’t mean that a modern couples can’t use NFP and still trust God.

Also, it’s clear to me from studying the teaching of the Church that “trust in God” does not preclude the responsible spacing/postponing of births. Humanae Vitae and the writings of JP2 teach as much. Many other Christians view birth control as the alternatives of modern methods of birth control on the one hand and total “providentialism” on the other. These are not the alternatives presented to us by the Church, and it is not through a fault of faith that Catholic married couples in the 21st century prayerfully decide to responsibly space or postpone pregnancies. Providentialism with regard to pregnancy is not the only way a Catholic couple can demonstrate or live a life of trust in God.

“Simply trusting God” CAN and often DOES involve the use of NFP to avoid/achieve pregnancy. In the end, we have little control over when pregnancy does or does not occur (infertility has taught me that much… ), but we do have much control over the degree to which we place our hearts and futures in God’s hands, do not worry about tomorrow, and trust that He will provide for us according to His will.

Clearly, NFP is allowed by the Church. Not arguing that it’s not, or that using NFP precludes trusting God. If that were true then this would be an entirely different conversation. My issue is this: I just look at the difference between the culture 60+ years ago and the way it is now as regards welcoming children into marriages. And I look at the way the Church *used *to talk about birth control (read any encyclical on the matter prior to 1960 for instance) and the way the Church does now (Humanae Vitae; CCC). It troubles me. Some couples right here on CAF, for instance, have no problem with saying that a serious or grave reason to use NFP is any reason that they can come up with. Just in the 3 or so years I’ve been on CAF, there’s even been a shift in those threads. More people give a thumbs up to the “a serious reason is whatever we think it is” position than have a problem with it. That’s all. The older documents (I’m thinking Pius XII in particluar) have no hesitation about spelling out what constitutes a grave reason. The newer ones, and the CCC, simply leave it to the individual couple’s discernment. But both the older documents and HV are infallible.

As I’ve said in other threads about this…I don’t think that the Church is wrong and I don’t see any other way at the moment that it could be changed. The troubling part, I think, isn’t in what the Church has put out (because the basic teaching hasn’t changed), but in how I see many modern Catholic couples interpreting the language that the Church uses. There might be a benefit to couples reading the newer documents in the context of the older. Since they don’t contradict eachother, all this could do would be to increase wisdom on the subject IMO. That’s just one idea.

I can’t argue the point any more eloquently than that, because then it would mean I have accurately p(name removed by moderator)ointed the exact problem and found a workable solution for the whole Church and I haven’t. I am just bothered by the inconsistency explained above.

 

[Paganus]

Some couples right here on CAF, for instance, have no problem with saying that a serious or grave reason to use NFP is any reason that they can come up with. Just in the 3 or so years I’ve been on CAF, there’s even been a shift in those threads. More people give a thumbs up to the “a serious reason is whatever we think it is” position than have a problem with it. That’s all.

I agree with you here. This is the Church Militant, not the Church Giving Up Without Firing A Shot. But people have been perfecting their excuse-making ever since Adam wimped out and blamed the apple-tasting on his dear wife.

 

[CradleCath]

I’m tired of reading that this is the reason why we choose to stop at 2 children.

Stop judging until you know what’s actually going on. It’s not fair to families who have chosen to have 2 or less children. There are valid reasons for this and it’s not a fancy car, etc.

It just really gets my skirt on fire.

I understand. I hope that YOU can understand that one’s skirt can just easily be set afire when people judge those with larger families, as:

*not caring whether their children go to college
*having more children than they can deal with emotionally
*not caring whether their children receive the amount of love & care
that they each need, etc., etc.

Believe it or not, some of us actually CHOOSE to have a family of 4 or more Children. We provide them with love, teach them about God, feed & dress them well & educate them well & we aren’t all wealthy, either.

BTW.The total fertility rate for the United States is below replacement value

catholicnewsagency.com/news/population_expert_sees_dangers_as_u.s._birthrate_falls_below_replacement/

Washington D.C., Apr 8, 2010 / 06:37 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The U.S. birthrate fell from 2007 to 2008 and is now below replacement rate. One population expert, noting that children are the “only future a country has,” warns that a scarcity of children condemns a country to stagnation, bankruptcy and eventually death.

 

[choy]

Ok first let me say that I’m single. I chose not to have children without being married and now it’s more than likely I will never have any but still I have to say I find all these threads about NFP troubling. It’s like everyone is out to do what they can to avoid children. I’m not for having 15 or 20 like the Duggars but whatever happened to the families of 5 or six kids. It’s like three became the norm and now only one or two is?? Just looking for thoughts on this. Do you think we’ve all lost focus on more important things?

in our former parish, the priest had a homily where he was basically mad at how modern society is so anti-family. basically one of the issues he attacked was the high cost of real estate in Vancouver. he said for a lot of money, you only get a small condo to live in. how conducive to raising a family is that? plus the fact that with the high costs, mommy is always forced to work instead of raising kids.

society today is very anti-family, and we mostly don’t realize it. i personally would love to have lots of kids, but we can’t afford it. we have one right now and given the circumstances our budget tightens up a bit. we’re hoping to raise our income by the time we receive a second one. and hopefully a little bit more by the time we get the third one. but as you can see, we’re already handcuffed by the fact that we need a certain income level to be able to raise children. and had we stayed in the Philippines instead of move to Canada where the only way children would have a bright future is to send them to private school, and where healthcare ain’t free, we probably would have stopped at one child.

 

[mini_me640]

**I understand. I hope that YOU can understand that one’s skirt can just easily be set afire when people judge those with larger families, as:

*not caring whether their children go to college
having more children than they can deal with emotionally
not caring whether their children receive the amount of love & care
that they each need, etc., etc.
Believe it or not, some of us actually CHOOSE to have a family of 4 or more Children. We provide them with love, teach them about God, feed & dress them well & educate them well & we aren’t all wealthy, either.

BTW.The total fertility rate for the United States is below replacement value

catholicnewsagency.com/news/population_expert_sees_dangers_as_u.s._birthrate_falls_below_replacement/

Washington D.C., Apr 8, 2010 / 06:37 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The U.S. birthrate fell from 2007 to 2008 and is now below replacement rate. One population expert, noting that children are the “only future a country has,” warns that a scarcity of children condemns a country to stagnation, bankruptcy and eventually death.

I didn’t see anyone on this thread judging large families at all or saying that they are not desirable. All of the bashing I saw was directed toward those who have used NFP to limit the size of their family, which is why Serap made the comment that she did. I know I personally think that large families are great, I just don’t think it’s fair that the OP (and a number of others on the thread) implied that those who use NFP to postpone conception do so out of selfishness.