A
- Status
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
And you wouldn’t feed your own child?
Wow, I don’t even have the words.
H
Havard
Guest
I think you make several good points. For sure, we should all avoid making blanket statements of condemnation. It definitely doesn’t hurt to remind people of that. On the other hand, there are causes for concern within Western culture, and I don’t blame the OP or others for wanting to discuss their thoughts about them responsibly.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
RealJuliane describes too many people, and I say this because they say it themselves: “I’m too selfish to have kids; I want to have a good time and not be bothered.” She is right: you can’t defend that attitude. It just isn’t the only attitude behind the assault on the desire to have families. Another one is: “Parenthood has to be done perfectly, and certainly far better than you can do. Your child deserves better than you, so just give it up.” That is even more sad, IMHO, because people deny themselves the joy of children who would have been delighted to have them, even with some hard times. There are other lies out there, too, but some people truly discern that they are not called to be parents. That is OK, too. Those aren’t the people who look down on children and on people who do have the call, though.
M
mellowcalico
Guest
I somehow missed this. This is kind of an extreme example… but no, it wouldn’t be selfish not to give your friend money. You help her pay rent this week… and then what? If she’s that bad off, where is next month’s rent coming from? There are other alternatives that are just as charitable… for example, you could invite her to sleep on your couch or something (thereby helping your friend and feeding your child). Although I would venture to say a true friend would never ask you to not feed your child so she could keep an apartment. I mean, think about it, would YOU ask your friend to not feed her child so you could stay in your apartment.
L
Luna_Lovecraft
Guest
The following phrases popped out at me from the OP’s post: “Why on earth would anyone…”, “…totally boggles my mind.”, “intellectual types.”, “an unnatural and abhorrent ideal…”, “It’s just not normal…”, “… pretty much all other cultures in the world…”, “How could anyone not want…”, “…prefer self absorption and a very shallow kind of…”, …“what a depressing existence!”, “…what the heck is wrong with the world!”
The rather histrionic tone of the post encourages like-minded individuals to pile on the condemnation and throw in a few epithets of their own for good measure.
I obviously can’t read the OP’s mind, but I didn’t take away from the post a desire to discuss so much as a desire to go after people who don’t have the kind of life or the mindset the OP has.
Luna
H
Havard
Guest
You’re right, the tone could use some softening.
I’d like to think that the OP was venting and got carried away. Most of us have done it to some extent or other. I don’t know him/her, but I’d like to give him/her the benefit of the doubt.
H
Havard
Guest
I agree, it is very important to draw those distinctions.
A
akela135
Guest
It is a bit of an extreme example true, but the thing is I’ve always made it a personal goal to be there for everyone who needed me no matter how tuff. If I complained about how giving them money would be a huge inconvience to me and make my life miserable that wouldn’t be very fair to them. So if my friend asked for money and I gave her the last of it, I’d do so saying “Yeah I’ve had a pretty good month so it is no trouble to help you out” and they wouldn’t be the wiser. That’s how I’ve always handled it before. One of my friends had been jobless for a while and when they got a new job they found out they needed a certain type of shoe and dress shirt for work, but they didn’t have the money for those so I bought them as a gift. However I almost over drew my bank account I cut it so close! My friend never found out though.
If the option was between helping them and not eating for a week I’d be sure to save a little money back. But I’ve eaten only rice for a week before to help out and so I’d see no reason not to do so again in the future. I just think it would be a little unfair to a child to make them eat plan rice for a solid week because your friend needed you. However I couldn’t see myself denying my friend either. I have several friends who have no one to ask for help in hard times except me, and I’ve always been there to lend a hand in whatever way possible. I once had 5 friends crash in a one bedroom apartment all at once when they were suddenly left homeless, a little harder to do if your house is already filled with people. I have friends who don’t have cars who walk everywhere but occasionally ask for rides when in emergencies, causing me to drop everything and rush to their aid. How do you drop everything when you have a baby or children?
I guess I just feel like a lot of people rely on me and I don’t want to end up in a place where I have to chose between helping others and a child. Perhaps having a child would not make me any less able to help others but it is one thing to say “helping this person is going to make my life very stressful and hard for the next week and I’m not sure how I’ll make it through but I just have to do my best for them!” And another to say “helping this person is going to make life very hard and stressful for my child. They will have to go without things they are used to and I’ll have less time to devot to them. They will have no choice but to endure it, even though it might be determental to them, because my friend needs me.”
Do you understand where I’m coming from? I guess I should work on being more charitable and explain myself better and get more advice. Here is an example question. If I had a child and told them they could have a friend over that afternoon before dropping them at school and then I get a call before school lets out from one of my friends saying that a doctor found some weird test results in a routine exam and wanted for them to go in for another test this afternoon. The test will take about 2 hours and they are scared and don’t want to go alone and they didn’t have anyone but me to ask to come with them. The test is right after school at the same time the child’s play date is. I’d want to go and support my friend, even though that means cancelling the child’s play date and making them sit at the doctors for 2 hours which will be very boring for them. Is that selfish to put my friend’s needs before my child’s in this type of setting? What if it isn’t so serious and it’s just their car broke down and they need a ride to work. It will delay getting home from school for 40 minutes, however, which will make the play date much shorter if it still gets to happen. Is that selfish, to help my friend in that situation? In both these situations I’m putting my friend first, but couldn’t imagine choosing to do anything else.
C
Calliso
Guest
No problem if I was offended I got over it pretty quick hehe
E
EasterJoy
Guest
A single person with a child and no support network would have an extremely difficult time managing this kind of thing, but married people with children have been known to do it, particularly if their circle of friends is also generous of heart…and single parents, having needed this kind of emergency help themselves, often find a way to pull it off, too!
It does not hurt a child to put someone else’ needs before their own. In your example, the play date could be missed, in necessary. Remember, though, that if your child has Christian friends, very often the Christian parents of your child’s play date will be willing to take your child so that you can help your friend in need. You call them to explain the situation and see if you need to cancel, and they say: “You help your friend. We’ll get Sally from school and she can stay with us until you’re finished. Don’t worry, she can stay for dinner if necessary, no problem!” Then on another day, you take their child while they take care of some family emergency or help someone they have found who needs it. This is the way the Christian community has long operated with regards to reaching out to those in need. The truth is, there are decent neighbors among the atheists who would do the same. To love is built into the human heart, and people of good will are often given the gift to do it even when they don’t have the gift of faith.
L
lifeandhope
Guest
Do you frequently have friends with such dramatic needs? It seems that it is important for you to be needed and be in the position to rescue and help those in need–have you, perhaps, created these types of relationships to fulfill that need in you? Is it healthy? I believe that friendships are important, but it is important for these relationships to be balanced and healthy. A true friend would never ask you for anything that would potentially interfere with or hurt your nuclear family (i.e. husband & child(ren)). Once you have a child, that child is the priority for you and your spouse. That child will only ever have one mother or father–friends come and go. As a mother of two daughters, 5 & 8, I cannot imagine putting anything or anyone first if it meant not meeting my girls’ needs. I have close friendships; my best friend has needed me in the last year as it has been difficult for her, but she has NEVER asked for anything that would create issues with my family (nor would I do anything to the detriment of my family if I ever was asked).
To the OP, I too have a wonderful marriage, great home, and children I adore. I thank God for my life every day. I believe God has richly blessed me (I also have a cancer disease and am very ill and in pain all the time, I lost my dad to the disease, and both girls have it, so my life is very difficult as well…but that is a whole other story…). I accept the blessings of my family with humilty, fully understanding that many (most?) do not have the wonderful marriage I have. Many have not had the same fortune in marriage, but are suffering with abuse or difficulties. My brother is married but he has chosen not to have children; he also has suffered greatly from our cancer disease and does not want to pass the disease on to any children. I did choose to have children, knowing the disease may be passed on, but I was only able to have two, as now I have too many brain and spinal cord tumors and another pregnancy would likely be fatal. There are many, many reasons people decide not to have children. Many people with my disease think that I am selfish for chosing to have children (many use preimplantation genetic testing and choose the embryos without the diseased gene–I don’t want to discard the ‘bad’ embryos and play God with my babies, so PGD was not an option for me).
To those who think having children means that you cannot fulfill your life and dreams: I have been to graduate school and have Master’s degree, have worked as a group and individual psychotherapist, and am able to pursue my goals. I do not do these to the detriment of my family, but it took some sacrifice all around. For example, I waited to enter graduate school until my girls were older, then I worked as a therapist while they were in school. It can be done.
Children are amazing people. I believe that if you have a child, planned or not, wanted or not, it is your full responsibility to make sure that you raise that child with love, discipline, and affection. It is your responsibility to make sure that child knows God and His Word, to teach and train that child to love the Lord. What happens in childhood, in particular the first five years of life, will have deep ramifications for the rest of his or her life.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
You’re right, kids do deserve better than parents who let it be known that they regret having had the children. You don’t have a great set of friends, do you? They regret having had their kids, they regret spending time with them. If I looked at my friends and they treated their children like that, they’d be ex-friends really quickly.
My mom was also 36 when I was born. Unfortunately she died when I was 10, of chronic heart disease. However, she taught me everything I needed to know about being a mom in those 10 years. I can’t wait to see her in Heaven and tell her all about how I loved my sons just the way she loved my sister and me.
S
stiffkittenbabe
Guest
In answer to your question, no woman “chooses” being a single mother. Sometimes they are forced to leave the man for the good of the child.
When someone does not meet a person they love enough to devote their life to, they should certainly NOT get married, as this would be a case of settling. For centuries, unmarried women have been marginalised and pressurised. We are expected from a young age to aspire to marriage, even though we have no idea who the groom is. Which sort of defeats the point.
This is why it is necessary to inspire those of us not sufficiently lucky to have found that person.
A
aragonjohn1
Guest
Misunderstood pleasure and entertainment
If you have enough time on your hands I recommend you read humanae vitae and Adam and eve after the pill.
Shalom
God bless
If you have enough time on your hands I recommend you read humanae vitae and Adam and eve after the pill.
Shalom
God bless
A
akela135
Guest
Not all my friendships are dramatic. I don’t seek out people who have trouble just if a friend has trouble I feel I should help. I mean doesn’t God call us to help others? I always viewed that as being a constant thing and not something to set to the side just because you had children.
I guess, correct me if I’m wrong, but when I reflect on God’s love for us I notice that his only son died on a cross for our salvation. Doesn’t that mean there are times we would be called to follow in that and sacrifice our family for the sake of others? God loved Jesus with a greater love than I think myself could manage with my weak human ability, but he didn’t stop and go “Wait? Sacrifice my only son for the sake of a whole bunch of people who are going to hate me and hate him and will sin against us anyway? No I think I won’t grant these people the chance of salvation after all.” Jesus even prayed in the garden about letting the cup pass if it was his father’s will. It was a true and loving sacrifice God made for us.
That’s where I think that to follow God I’d have to make sacfrices of my children in my efforts to continue helping others and assisting those in need. However today’s culture and other parents teach me that it is all about the children. If you have kids they are your first and really only priority, nothing is as important as their happiness and well being. They must have the best clothes, schools, toys, vacations, friends. You must have quality family time every single day and spend all your free time with your children doing what they want or you are not being a good parent. The thing is I can’t make children my everything. My parents, my brother, my DH will not cease to exisit the second I have a child. The homeless shelter will still need volunteers, the parish will still need volunteers to help with its various ministries, the nursing home will still be full of people as will the hospital, but my obligation to help in these ways will cease to exisit once I have a child otherwise I’m a bad parent and my child will suffer?
So I recognize that I am one person and I cannot do everything. I can do much more with the help of DH than I can do by myself, and we support each other to help in our goals to do all these things. However I feel that given the fact I feel inspired and even called by God to do all these things how could I possible bring a child into all this? A child will require time and energy that is already spread thin. What do I cancel because I have a child? What charities are less important now that I have a child? How do you make the call that “even though they need all the hands they can get, I have a child now and have to think of them and can no longer help” it is not selfish because I have a child? So I feel for me, having a child at this time would be wrong. I would be sharing the time that should belong to caring for them, to charity work and helping others. The child would not be first in my life; having one is selfish, but not having one is also selfish.
E
edwest2
Guest
It’s not the world. A few radicals carefully planned to undermine Church teaching and to destroy the family, the sanctity of life in the womb and the sanctity of marriage. How was it done? First, by wolves in sheep’s clothing, second, by wolves openly living in “alternative lifestyles” whose primary goal was sex and pleasure. Here’s the history part. It took 40 years to get to where we are. And 40 years of lies and deception, which are still ongoing. But we need to know how and why.
1960 The FDA approves the birth control pill.
The fiction was put out there that you can’t control yourself. You needed this. I was born in the mid-1950s. the average number of kids in my neighborhood was 2.
1966 The destructive radical feminist organization the National Organization for Women is founded. It had two goals: destroy normal male-female relationships and promote abortion.
www.now.org/
1967 Time magazine does a cover story about The Pill. Like any advertising campaign, it offers you something that will give you freedom. Freedom from what? Fear. Fear of having babies.
Read the top line. “Contraception: Freedom from fear.” Yes, you are now liberated.
1968 Pope Paul VI knows what’s going, but the manufacturers of The Pill can’t afford to have the Catholic Church standing in the way of sales. He reaffirms constant Church teaching about artificial contraception against the advice of a group formed just before the release of Humanae Vitae. He warns of increased promiscuity if his words are not heeded. The wolves inside and outside the Church act very quickly:
“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.”
Got that? “… an event unprecedented in the history of the Church…”
So, how do you get normal Catholic males thinking only about sexual pleasure as opposed to a lifetime of wonderful family life - as per normal? You start the Sexual Revolution.
1970s Adult Bookstores open across the country selling graphic images of prostitutes. I am shocked and stunned - I was there. It was legal they said. They spent millions of dollars on models, photographers, printers, distributors and employees.
As I was growing up, a bar was a place to smoke and get a few beers, and some of the hard stuff. Imagine looking up at an overhang on a bar one day on a main street. What do I see? A mannequin wearing high heels, panties and no bra, her upper torso covered in a sheer negligee. Topless bars appear everywhere, because, after all, seeing pictures is one thing. Seeing a real woman was another. So let’s throw in Strip Clubs as well.
Short of prostitution in the case of strip clubs and topless bars, men are encouraged to look at women as sex objects - degrading the dignity we held for the female as a whole person.
1973 Abortion is legalized by the Supreme Court, not the people. How?
catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=402
A
akela135
Guest
I guess I should say one more thing. I’m not really opposed to raising children, I’m just opposed to raising my own children. I really want to help as many people as possible, and there are many children who need loving homes. I don’t understand why if I have the resources for exactly 3 (just an example number), I can’t choose to adopt 3 children instead of having my own. If I adopt children I’m helping kids who are in an already bad situation have a better life (I hope). If I choose to have my own children I’m denying kids who are in need the chance at help, only because I was selfish and chose to have my own children.
However I would never adopt a child until I was able to work out all the other things in my life and see exactly how I could care for them to the best of my abilities. Which would still be a while down the road for me. However this puts a big roadblock in the way to having my own biological children because then I have to convince myself it really isn’t selfish to leave a child in foster care so that way I can have my own. And I’m not sure I’d be able to swing that in a way I could accept. Either way for me, I don’t think I’d be able to be a good parent to my own biological children because I’d see them and think they were a selfish drain on my time when I could be out helping others. That’s a bad place for them to be in.
However I would never adopt a child until I was able to work out all the other things in my life and see exactly how I could care for them to the best of my abilities. Which would still be a while down the road for me. However this puts a big roadblock in the way to having my own biological children because then I have to convince myself it really isn’t selfish to leave a child in foster care so that way I can have my own. And I’m not sure I’d be able to swing that in a way I could accept. Either way for me, I don’t think I’d be able to be a good parent to my own biological children because I’d see them and think they were a selfish drain on my time when I could be out helping others. That’s a bad place for them to be in.
E
edwest2
Guest
In the 1970s, the family is trashed. All women are the eternal victims of the eternal enemy - men. They were taught to fear and distrust men. A few words from the radical feminists:
“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Gloria Steinem, co-founder of Ms. magazine. Yes, that’s where that word came from.
Feminist Betty Friedan calls the family “a comfortable concentration camp.”
“Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!!” Meaning men. Men ran everything, including the Catholic Church. The patriarchy had to be destroyed.
Don’t bring me flowers or candy or your lies. I know what you’re really up to.
So, women got their marching orders. You are in charge, not men. Get out of the house, join the Army, become a CEO, and make as much money as he does, or more, because he will eventually kick you to the curb and leave you with the kids.
It was all about power and control, not friendship, not trust, not mutual affection and love. It was now a power game and women had to win it.
Babies? What for? If you want one, put it in daycare while you’re out busy destroying the patriarchy. Then kick it out of the house when it turns 18.
1980s Porn on cable. TV and movies get raunchier. And No-Fault Divorce, the easy way out. I saw a lot of the following in the Classifieds section of the newspaper. “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.” The fear and distrust created by the radical feminist propaganda campaign paid off.
Meanwhile, the Hippies, the radicals and anarchists who were living with and having sex with their girlfriends are yelling: “Leave us alone! We’re responsible adults. We’ll do what we want!”
Imagine the heartbreak mom and dad felt as they watched their sons and daughters gradually join in. It was easy. It was about pleasure. Marriage was hard - or so they were told. And some women who were looking for real love, agreed to “one night stands.”
Let’s go to the present. Sex is now, “just sex,” like going to the bathroom. Why complicate life with kids and a family? You’re young, you’re attractive. There’s no time for all that. Keep the money. Have sex when you feel like it but nothing permanent. Buy nice things. Pleasure, pleasure, pleasure. Selfishness? Sure.
Got a problem with a pregnancy? Abort it.
A man? Divorce him.
Take birth control, so when you’re in the mood you can just pick some random guy and satisfy yourself and not have to deal with his baggage. Who wants to really care? Who wants to be burdened by somebody else and their problems?
Or - to put it my way - “I don’t want the cake. Just give me the icing.”
Thank God for you and your family.
God bless,
Ed
“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Gloria Steinem, co-founder of Ms. magazine. Yes, that’s where that word came from.
Feminist Betty Friedan calls the family “a comfortable concentration camp.”
“Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!!” Meaning men. Men ran everything, including the Catholic Church. The patriarchy had to be destroyed.
Don’t bring me flowers or candy or your lies. I know what you’re really up to.
So, women got their marching orders. You are in charge, not men. Get out of the house, join the Army, become a CEO, and make as much money as he does, or more, because he will eventually kick you to the curb and leave you with the kids.
It was all about power and control, not friendship, not trust, not mutual affection and love. It was now a power game and women had to win it.
Babies? What for? If you want one, put it in daycare while you’re out busy destroying the patriarchy. Then kick it out of the house when it turns 18.
1980s Porn on cable. TV and movies get raunchier. And No-Fault Divorce, the easy way out. I saw a lot of the following in the Classifieds section of the newspaper. “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.” The fear and distrust created by the radical feminist propaganda campaign paid off.
Meanwhile, the Hippies, the radicals and anarchists who were living with and having sex with their girlfriends are yelling: “Leave us alone! We’re responsible adults. We’ll do what we want!”
Imagine the heartbreak mom and dad felt as they watched their sons and daughters gradually join in. It was easy. It was about pleasure. Marriage was hard - or so they were told. And some women who were looking for real love, agreed to “one night stands.”
Let’s go to the present. Sex is now, “just sex,” like going to the bathroom. Why complicate life with kids and a family? You’re young, you’re attractive. There’s no time for all that. Keep the money. Have sex when you feel like it but nothing permanent. Buy nice things. Pleasure, pleasure, pleasure. Selfishness? Sure.
Got a problem with a pregnancy? Abort it.
A man? Divorce him.
Take birth control, so when you’re in the mood you can just pick some random guy and satisfy yourself and not have to deal with his baggage. Who wants to really care? Who wants to be burdened by somebody else and their problems?
Or - to put it my way - “I don’t want the cake. Just give me the icing.”
Thank God for you and your family.
God bless,
Ed
D
Debora123
Guest
In all fairness, there is nothing wrong with a woman joining the army, being a CEO, or making as much money as a man.
Though I plan on being a stay at home mom myself, I can definitely see the benefits of having a career to fall back on in case (heaven forbid) something happens to the husband.
I’d also like to point out that the “good old days” before the feminine revolution where times when women weren’t allowed to vote, didn’t get paid the same wage for doing the same work, and were often physically abused by their husbands - with little or no consequences, since this wasn’t frowned upon like it is today.
There never were “good ol’ days” and there never will be. Society had problems then, and society has problems now. Some of those problems may be different, but they are problems nonetheless.
- Status