Thanks be to God for your fortitude and endurnace regarding the large number of rather personal attacks of many people who desire to be understood more than to understand. May the Holy Spirit continue to guide you in your interactions with visitors with different viewpoints. It certainly is not charitable to neglect offering the Truth to those who have not yet met Him. Your site offers so much information to the people who aren’t given the truth by main-stream sources, and truely is a blessing.
It is a difficult concept to grasp that as human people our mission, despite religious devotion or lack there of, is to love and care for our fellow man. Love is extremely self-giving and immensely self-sacrificing: it is hard. It requires much, much work and continuous self-improvement. It is not about teaching those around us how to *change* that they may be better. It is about changing the things within us (whether we be irresponsible, independent, intolerant, afraid, etc) that hold us back from the single true freedom of loving and being loved. I know I make a conscious decision to live this way, but I won’t pretend like I do it nearly as well as I could!
While I acknowledge that not every person is called to the parenthood(!!!), I think its necessary to differentiate a person’s nature from a person’s behavior. Where a person is being called and where a person wants to be called. I believe in the quotations that I’ve heard referencing both diciples and saints: that they are not born, they are made.
I am extremely thankful my liberation from contraception and my return to organic living where I can appreciate my body in its natural state; where I don’t have to change my nature, or deny my womanhood and fertility, to be equal to others. How empowering!
Thank you again for listening and following where you are lead. Peace.
Bravo! You’ve finally realized that it’s all about a woman’s right to have CONTROL over her own reproductive decisions! Congratulations! You’re making progress!
Now, try to understand this: Forced abortion in China is completely irrelevant to the decisions made by Western childfree women. That’s kind of like blaming American atheists for the religious wars in the Middle East. It is a non-sequitur side issue of epic proportions and refutes nothing, because no one is forcing childfree women to get tubal ligations — they’re all doing it of their own free will.
It’s interesting how Catholics love to point to the horror that is the Chinese one-child policy, yet won’t even acknowledge the flip side of that policy, in which Romanian women were denied contraception and safe abortion services, were subjected to invasive and humiliating questioning by secret police for remaining childless, were forced to take pregnancy tests in the workplace as a condition of employment, and were forced to meet state-mandated childbearing quotas. It’s interesting how NFP advocates love to wave the Chinese atrocities in the faces of CFers (as though any of us ever condoned them in the first place) but like to pretend as though Nicolae Ceausceau (and all those Romanian women who were maimed or killed by unsafe illegal abortions, and all those hundreds of thousands of emotionally and developmentally disabled Romanian orphans still being slowly neglected to death in orphanages) never existed.
Face it — reproductive freedom includes the right to NOT bear unwanted children, just as it includes the right to bear wanted children. Pregnancy is not a crime; but neither is childfreedom.
Now, try to understand this: Forced pregnancy, forced childbirth, and forced childrearing are just as horrific as forced abortion. The violation of a woman’s will regarding her reproductive decisions is always tyranny, regardless of whether it’s the Chinese or Romanian governments or the Pope who are trying to force their will on unwilling women.
I am extremely thankful to the surgeon who liberated me from the burden of unwanted fertility. I am extremely grateful for my arrival at a place of security, where I can appreciate my own and my husband’s natural sexuality without fear, and without the endless dread of unwanted pregnancy. Now I don’t have to deny my womanhood, and forego marriage to the man that I love and who loves me. How empowering! How blissful! How absolutely wonderful!
Welcome back, Blue. Welcome back, saccharine sarcasm. I know that in my first Childfree post I covered population topics as related to reasons for being childfree, and hence your once again lengthy response. However, I made no clear connection to the CFers in this most recent post. I simply posted a youtube video related to population.
Your assumption that I was making a point that “it’s all about a woman’s right…” is incorrect, not because I believe women in China don’t have inherent dignity, but because of the semantics of words like choice and reproductive rights. Those two things have two different meanings for both of us, so I don’t feel we can even begin to debate on it, knowing we can’t agree on terms.
Thank you, really and honestly, for your passionate defense against atrocities committed in heart of Communist countries, particularly against women. Please point me to a couple resources on the ‘forced pregnancy, forced childbirth, and forced childbearing…’ because I’m not as familiar with this as you are.
Hello again, NFP! Very interesting video. If I may, I have a couple of personal things to say about it.
The situation in China is very sad when it comes to their battle with overpopulation. This is one of the dreadful things that can happen when you let a communistic government take control of population control and birth rates, which is to take draconian measures. No woman should have to suffer forced abortion.
The use of, and education in using, contraceptives really can go a long way in preventing the possibility of the need for a woman to have an abortion. I feel that it is a God-given right for a woman to decide whether or not to become pregnant, and those decisions should not impede upon her drive to have a healthy and satisfying relationship with her husband.
One more thing… I should clarify about a part in my last comment. Rather, I should stress the education part. I did not mean for anything to be forced upon anyone, ultimately whether to bear or not bear children and the facilities to do either.
I am honestly - and completely without sarcasm - confused, my friends. I’m wondering if someone could gently explain this to me.
Forgive me, but doesn’t the mentality of the Chinese government and of those who have chosen a life of perpetual contraception, through sterilization or otherwise, come from the same place where children are a burden? And isn’t the fact that there exists “all those hundreds of thousands of emotionally and developmentally disabled Romanian orphans still being slowly neglected to death in orphanages” a sign of the same thing? Isn’t the underlying idea: we “can’t” care for these “things”, and it is therefore our “right” to not have them around?
Don’t get me wrong! I *do* believe that God does not call all people to use the biological fertility He gave them! Absolutely!! Priests and religious sisters take vows to not use their God-given fertility and the Catholic church venerates them, uses them as examples, and praises them for the decision because it is a decision of love. They are doing it out of love for their Creator, and choosing instead to focus on building their spiritual families, which far, far, far outnumber the members of biological families!
But I also believe that He doesn’t ask anyone to do away with that fertility. I mean, I don’t want to be fat. Being fat is not for me and the results of it scare the hell out of me. But I have never considered cutting out part of my digestive system. If I don’t want to be fat, isn’t it my responsibility to use my “hunger” responsibly using cues that my body gives me? Doesn’t the concept of “cause and effect” come from the sciences?
Even our appendix, which we no longer use, isn’t removed until it causes a life-threatening problem. I’m confused as to why someone would suggest it is OK to cut out fully healthy organs simply because they may cause a life*style*-treatening problem. And by making such a permanent change to a person’s body, doesn’t that make her or him a slave to a single choice they made once upon a time? I mean, I understand that no government should have jurisdiction over our reproductive organs and I understand that our sexuality is our responsibility to regulate, but why is it such an overwhelming opinion that anyone, including even ourselves, should have full CONTROL over fertility?
I’m sincerely not asking this to get a rise out of anyone! I just don’t understand. I don’t know if its because I am no longer a slave to the need of control over every aspect of my life. I don’t know. Maybe it’s because I have opened up my heart to using the joys and struggles of my life to deepen my relationship with my Creator, and I can’t rationalize it being a “human right” to objectify the lives of others to the point of being “things” I want or “things” that burden me…
Aha! I indeed apologize for the length of my last post. After reviewing your previous post, NFP (because of the semantics of words like choice and reproductive rights. Those two things have two different meanings for both of us, so I don’t feel we can even begin to debate on it, knowing we can’t agree on terms.), I realize that this was probably and inappropriate place for my questions.
Yes, Catholics do seem to like to invoke the Chinese one-child policy and the horrors it entails — seemingly, without ever realizing the effect of what CAUSED it to come to that. They always seem to think that the Chinese came up with this policy just to be cruel, completely rejecting the idea that maybe a billion people (almost one sixth of the world’s population) being born into a single country might have strained that country’s resources to its utmost.
Can you not see that the current horrors in China are the direct result of unrestrained breeding? If, as you wish, the entire human race becomes Catholic, pitches their contraceptives, practices ONLY NFP and makes sure that conception can happen with every act of intercourse — even to women who don’t want children, to women who can’t afford children, to women with congenital hereditary health problems that could be passed on to children, and women with health problems that could be exacerbated by having children — guess what the end result is? Perhaps a population so large that the government makes pro-natalist religious policies anathema and cracks down on breeding to draconian levels?
I’m not seeing any understanding in cause and effect here. Honestly, the reason we DON’T have a one-child policy here in the States is more than likely because we’re actually managing our population at the replacement level, through the widespread use of contraception.
It’s a bit simplistic to blame the poverty in China on overpopulation. That’s because such an idea doesn’t take the idea of inequality into consideration. On a global scale, it’s been demonstrated that there is no overpopulation; rather, there’s an inequality of resource allocation. I’ll bet that a nonbiased study of China (as if such a thing could happen) will show something similar. It’s certainly true in the United States.
Contraception leads to abortion. There’s no way that Roe v. Wade would have happened without Griswold v. Connecticut first. That’s the case that created widespread contraceptive use and thus turned sex from something special to be kept and shared judiciously, into little more than a contact sport. Generally, when there’s more casual sex (a result of contraception) there tend to be more abortions.
So no, I don’t believe it’s “cause and effect.” The cause of the one-child policy in China is NOT overpopulation. It’s the fact that the elite don’t want to share and share alike when it comes to resources. Put more bluntly, it’s because those at the top of the food chain don’t see human beings when they look at the folks at the bottom of the food chain. Rather, they just see inconveniences.
It’s a bit simplistic to blame the poverty in China on overpopulation.
Just like it’s a bit simplistic to blame water for wetting things. Overpopulation leads to a devaluing of life — why value that which you’ve got a BILLION of? Do you place intrinsic value on every grain of sand on a vast beach?
Contraception leads to abortion.
That’s absurd. The entire purpose of contraception is to prevent pregnancy, therefore eliminating the need for abortions. If you never get pregnant, you’ll never need an abortion. Widespread education on the use of contraceptives and widespread availability of affordable contraceptives drastically cuts down on the number of abortions performed. All the scientific evidence shows that abortion rates are the lowest in countries where sex education and contraceptives are readily available. Look at Sweden — their teen pregnancy rate is TINY and the quality of life is excellent. Look at Third World Africa, where sex education and contraceptives are often unavailable — are they a bastion of wholly monogamous heterosexual marriage? Last I checked there was a major AIDS epidemic going on and prostitution was rampant.
I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that sex wasn’t a contact sport to some people before the existence of modern contraceptives, and that everyone paired off in wholly monogamous heterosexual marriages before Griswold vs. Connecticut. Read your history — the excesses of the ancient Romans make modern society look mannered by comparison. Condoms have been in use for centuries, and the ancient Chinese even came up with semi-effective birth control pills. Women were having abortions in this country long before it became legal; the biggest difference is that now they aren’t dying of septicemia and blood loss in droves afterward anymore.
I’ve seen some tortured logic in my day, but madam, you have absconded with the cake here.
So my choice as a woman who doesn’t want kids is to either become a nun and never have sex, or breed virally if I get married? Wow, what workable and attractive choices THOSE are.
But ultimately, I am glad you gals are out there. The world must be peopled, and God knows I’M not going to help (especially when I could pass down the family legacy of schizophrenia.) You can have my two spots in the replacement rate with my blessing, and I’ll just continue on in my happy marriage and happy life without ‘em. Mmmwah!
Thanks be to God for your fortitude and endurnace regarding the large number of rather personal attacks of many people
Well, I get the distinct feeling if this blogger hadn’t started matters by calling an entire segment of society “evil incarnate”, none of ‘em would have ever noticed this blog exists.
Welcome back, sacharine sarcasm.
The word is “saccharin,” ma’am. [Actually, it turns out it's 'saccharine' with an 'e'--did you run *your* spellchecker??] If you’re going to hold yourself up as a NFP pundit, it really might help your credibility if you’d PLEASE just run spellcheck once in awhile. I also don’t see how someone who feels no compunction about labeling me and people like me “evil incarnate” can imagine she’s above being snarked back. Honestly, if I had written an ill-spelled, ill-reasoned diatribe full of blatant contradictions and logical fallacies ripping on Catholics, I’d wholly expect to get snarked for it. This is the Internet, after all.
I know that in my first Childfree post I covered population topics as related to reasons for being childfree, and hence your once again lengthy response.
That’s just it — you didn’t cover overpopulation topics in any way, you pooh-poohed them. Denying that overpopulation exists despite all evidence to the contrary isn’t “covering” it, it’s ignoring it. “Depopulation is the new overpopulation!” declareth she, as blithely as Vogue magazine declares pink to be the new black. I know you can type the words “cognitive dissonance,” but can you recognize it?
So we’ve got an example of what happens when people are allowed to breed unchecked until overpopulation threatens everyone’s quality of life (China) and examples of what happens when all recourse to safe contraception and abortion are taken away by the state (Romania.) Women with more than ten kids used to be called “heroine mothers” in Romania and received all kinds of perks, including free cars. Yet nearly no one aspired to be a heroine mother. I wonder why?
What folks here also aren’t taking into account is that human beings were using birth control far longer than the Catholic church has even existed. Griswold v. Connecticut barely registers in significance as far as the scope of contraceptive use through the ages. The ancients were using silphium and other herbs as oral contraceptives before Christ was even born — what’s changed is that the early Christian church leaders didn’t like the idea that their flocks were being limited in number and proscribed the use of contraceptives of any kind. Better that one should drink herbal tea every day as to ward off unwanted pregnancy than the retroactive birth control practiced by other ancient civilizations, like the Spartans and Greeks, who would expose unwanted infants to the elements, I think.
Look, if you don’t want to use birth control, fine. Don’t. But as you are a Christian, perhaps you could exercise some Christian charity and not call other people “evil incarnate” for disagreeing with you. Or does Christian charity only apply to those who believe as you do? Does being a Christian entitle you to abuse non-Christians at will, because we obviously aren’t real human beings?
“But as you are a Christian, perhaps you could exercise some Christian charity and not call other people “evil incarnate” for disagreeing with you. Or does Christian charity only apply to those who believe as you do? Does being a Christian entitle you to abuse non-Christians at will, because we obviously aren’t real human beings?”
Good point, Blue. I’d like to point out, also, that there is such a thing as childfree Christians. (My wife and I are part of this).
I’ve been anxiously awaiting an explanation for why somebody who choses not to have kids for personal reasons is evil incarnate a few months now NFPworks. The only actual response we got was humans aren’t pets or cats, which is pretty much obvious. Why are we evil ?
No contraceptive is 100% effective. Abortion is just a backup contraceptive. Contraceptives–and this includes NFP used with a contraceptive mentality–just give way to more promiscuity, affairs, an increase in premarital sex that can only be linked to an increase in abortions.
Even though the two issues are closely related, this isn’t a discussion site for abortion. Any more posts that are meant to inflame on that topic will be deleted.
Btw, the “evil incarnate” comment has elicited the most commentary. I’ll post mroe on this soon. I wasn’t calling *people* inherently evil, but the child free mentality which divorces sex from procreation and makes sex a dishonest act. That’s my position, which I know you don’t agree with. Guess what? I don’t care, and posting vitriol is not going to change anyone’s mind.
So. Why not adopt? Are children only viable when they’re concepts and not actual human beings that must be provided for? What is going to happen to all of these children who are born to parents who literally cannot provide for them? Who will help? Will you help?
I guess the above question got through your screening processes. I would love it if you addressed the real problems with the nfp method - because it is just plain stupid to assume that this is the correct method for everyone. You don’t seem to find a thing wrong with it despite the excellent points that are being brought up that go against what you are saying. Don’t you want to address these points or are you just going to delete them and pretend like they didn’t happen?
You’re not proving to be a very strong spokes person for this cause and guess what - when you start a blog regarding a topic such as this you in a sense become a representative for the cause. When you spout off with childish retorts such as “Guess what? I don’t care” you make your cause look like a joke. Just thought I’d point that out to you. I’m sure this comment will be deleted like all the others that don’t agree with the nfp way of life.
I’d love to address the “real problems” of NFP, but there really aren’t any compared to contraception. I’m sure you find this laughable, but I’m more than willing to address your specific rational questions about it.
The reason why I haven’t responded to the vast majority of comments is because many of them are vitriolic (such as “I guess you delete comments by people who don’t kiss your movements *ss” You call *me* childish?!).
Saying “Guess what? I don’t care” isn’t childish; it’s frank.
I do call you childish. Because instead of addressing points that I made - in a mature manner at first - you deleted them. If you really want to open up a forum for debate (which, sorry, the nature of this site does lend itself to that) then you must respect other people’s opinions. You don’t have to agree with them, but you could at least respond to them rather then just deleting them. That doesn’t make any sense to me - and yes, it did strike me as childish. I’m just being frank with you here.
So here is a question for you - suppose you have a disease that makes a rather unplanned pregnancy a big health risk. Meaning, it could cause risk to the mother if it wasn’t handled the right way. Suppose that any pregnancy - any at all - needed to be carefully planned and monitored. Wouldn’t birth control be a better option for a couple like this who is not Catholic? If you are crying out for the sanctity of life doesn’t that include the potential mother as well? That is where I get caught up and confused with your points here. It seems that the potential life is more important than anything else - including being able to provide for the child or the risks that the mother might be taking on by a ‘natural family planning’ method.
And what about those who simply don’t feel drawn to motherhood (and, also are not Catholic)? Some women just don’t feel like they would be interested in being a mother, you know? Forcing motherhood on them or making them feel bad about not wanting to be mothers is just about the nastiest thing I could think of. I get that you think of it as a sin…but I really don’t think it is your job to condemn people for their sins. I really don’t. That is God’s job and no one else’s. Again, just being frank with you here.
Cycles, your presupposition is that NFP is not as effective for postponing or avoiding pregnancy for, as you gave the example, health reasons. It seems that you’re not familiar with NFP and how it works (I may be wrong here) and you are thinking NFP is its less effective predecessor, the Rhythm method. It also seems that you’re not familiar with the clinical studies proving the effectiveness of NFP as a birth control, not to mention the anecdotal experience of Mother Teresa’s nuns in India who teach a simpler form of NFP called the Standard Days Method, and had great success with preventing pregnancy in poverty-racked India. See more on effectiveness studies here: http://www.njnfp.org/resources/links.php#link06
I’m sorry you feel that I’m “condemning people for their sins” by criticizing their choices and associating themselves with a movement that, in some quarters, reduces the great gift of a child to at best an object of frustration and at worst a parasite to society. I’ve already stated the difference between calling an action evil and a person evil, and I was not doing the latter. There may be (and usually are ) mitigating factors (such as encountering an enraging article on the web describing the worst of the worst of the CF movement) for why someone chooses to do something bad (such as use a tasteless phrase to criticize one’s enemies), but it still makes that act objectively bad/evil/sinful.
But with NFP you still have that increased risk that you don’t necessarily have with the forms of birth control that are out on the market. For someone such as myself - a type one diabetic with a non-cancerous tumor on her liver (which could burst and cause internal bleeding and then death as a result of said bleeding) even that thin risk is too much. I have to sit down with my doctor and plan. Having a child, when you’re a person who isn’t in the healthy mainstream, is an incredibly difficult undertaking.
So really, when you talk about this stuff, you have to consider every single person out there. That’s a lot of people! If I were to get pregnant before I was ready there is a high chance that it would kill both myself and the unborn child. I’m sorry, but does that sound like a good idea to you? That is why I chose the stay child free until I am confident that nothing bad would happen. And, yes, that does involve birth control.
But that is my belief system. I don’t really think that you can say that birth control = evil. In your group sure - it is evil. But that is just within your group. I’m sharing my story with you because I …guess I want you to realize that there is more than meets the eye when it comes to this topic, and that condemning (or what ever you’d like to call what you’ve been doing) people for not following your life choice is just silly. I strongly urge you to love and accept your fellow man.
But..until then. I’m evil. I’m evil/bad/sinful in the eyes of the Catholic church because I don’t freely have children. It’s strange to think that a religion that claims to follow Jesus would condemn me as such. More then that..it’s just plain sad.
[Editor's Comment: I've made no judgement on the state of *anyone's soul* on my own behalf or on the Church's behalf. I'm sorry that Cycles continues to receive it that way, which just show that she continues to misunderstand the very nature of Christianity, good, evil and the very notion of personhood.]
I don’t particularly care for your “editors comment”. I don’t think you really get the concept of loving and accepting your fellow man. I fail to see how my choice to not have children is in endangering any personhood - because to have children would be endangering my own personal right to life at the moment. Do adults not count here? I would honestly like to know.
I understand the concept of Christianity, good, evil, and the very notion of personhood. However - I don’t understand it in your terms. When I think of Christianity I like of love. When I think of good I think of loving and respecting my fellow man. When I think of evil I think of people who are quick to judge based on text that they probably do not fully understand. When I think of personhood I think of everyones right to life (and not just unconcieved children).
So clearly I am wrong. And honestly, if you would like to continue this discussion why not address my points? All you’ve done - a bit immaturely in my own humble opinion - is leave a snarky comment at the bottom of my comment accusing me of not ‘understanding’. That is what I was talking about with the immaturity earlier, you know. You’re so quick to defend yourself that you appear to have missed the point all together.
LambsWirth said,
January 26, 2008 at 12:07 am
Thanks be to God for your fortitude and endurnace regarding the large number of rather personal attacks of many people who desire to be understood more than to understand. May the Holy Spirit continue to guide you in your interactions with visitors with different viewpoints. It certainly is not charitable to neglect offering the Truth to those who have not yet met Him. Your site offers so much information to the people who aren’t given the truth by main-stream sources, and truely is a blessing.
It is a difficult concept to grasp that as human people our mission, despite religious devotion or lack there of, is to love and care for our fellow man. Love is extremely self-giving and immensely self-sacrificing: it is hard. It requires much, much work and continuous self-improvement. It is not about teaching those around us how to *change* that they may be better. It is about changing the things within us (whether we be irresponsible, independent, intolerant, afraid, etc) that hold us back from the single true freedom of loving and being loved. I know I make a conscious decision to live this way, but I won’t pretend like I do it nearly as well as I could!
While I acknowledge that not every person is called to the parenthood(!!!), I think its necessary to differentiate a person’s nature from a person’s behavior. Where a person is being called and where a person wants to be called. I believe in the quotations that I’ve heard referencing both diciples and saints: that they are not born, they are made.
I am extremely thankful my liberation from contraception and my return to organic living where I can appreciate my body in its natural state; where I don’t have to change my nature, or deny my womanhood and fertility, to be equal to others. How empowering!
Thank you again for listening and following where you are lead. Peace.
Blue said,
January 27, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Bravo! You’ve finally realized that it’s all about a woman’s right to have CONTROL over her own reproductive decisions! Congratulations! You’re making progress!
Now, try to understand this: Forced abortion in China is completely irrelevant to the decisions made by Western childfree women. That’s kind of like blaming American atheists for the religious wars in the Middle East. It is a non-sequitur side issue of epic proportions and refutes nothing, because no one is forcing childfree women to get tubal ligations — they’re all doing it of their own free will.
It’s interesting how Catholics love to point to the horror that is the Chinese one-child policy, yet won’t even acknowledge the flip side of that policy, in which Romanian women were denied contraception and safe abortion services, were subjected to invasive and humiliating questioning by secret police for remaining childless, were forced to take pregnancy tests in the workplace as a condition of employment, and were forced to meet state-mandated childbearing quotas. It’s interesting how NFP advocates love to wave the Chinese atrocities in the faces of CFers (as though any of us ever condoned them in the first place) but like to pretend as though Nicolae Ceausceau (and all those Romanian women who were maimed or killed by unsafe illegal abortions, and all those hundreds of thousands of emotionally and developmentally disabled Romanian orphans still being slowly neglected to death in orphanages) never existed.
Face it — reproductive freedom includes the right to NOT bear unwanted children, just as it includes the right to bear wanted children. Pregnancy is not a crime; but neither is childfreedom.
Now, try to understand this: Forced pregnancy, forced childbirth, and forced childrearing are just as horrific as forced abortion. The violation of a woman’s will regarding her reproductive decisions is always tyranny, regardless of whether it’s the Chinese or Romanian governments or the Pope who are trying to force their will on unwilling women.
I am extremely thankful to the surgeon who liberated me from the burden of unwanted fertility. I am extremely grateful for my arrival at a place of security, where I can appreciate my own and my husband’s natural sexuality without fear, and without the endless dread of unwanted pregnancy. Now I don’t have to deny my womanhood, and forego marriage to the man that I love and who loves me. How empowering! How blissful! How absolutely wonderful!
nfpworks said,
January 28, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Welcome back, Blue. Welcome back, saccharine sarcasm. I know that in my first Childfree post I covered population topics as related to reasons for being childfree, and hence your once again lengthy response. However, I made no clear connection to the CFers in this most recent post. I simply posted a youtube video related to population.
Your assumption that I was making a point that “it’s all about a woman’s right…” is incorrect, not because I believe women in China don’t have inherent dignity, but because of the semantics of words like choice and reproductive rights. Those two things have two different meanings for both of us, so I don’t feel we can even begin to debate on it, knowing we can’t agree on terms.
Thank you, really and honestly, for your passionate defense against atrocities committed in heart of Communist countries, particularly against women. Please point me to a couple resources on the ‘forced pregnancy, forced childbirth, and forced childbearing…’ because I’m not as familiar with this as you are.
Chris W said,
January 29, 2008 at 7:01 am
Hello again, NFP! Very interesting video. If I may, I have a couple of personal things to say about it.
The situation in China is very sad when it comes to their battle with overpopulation. This is one of the dreadful things that can happen when you let a communistic government take control of population control and birth rates, which is to take draconian measures. No woman should have to suffer forced abortion.
The use of, and education in using, contraceptives really can go a long way in preventing the possibility of the need for a woman to have an abortion. I feel that it is a God-given right for a woman to decide whether or not to become pregnant, and those decisions should not impede upon her drive to have a healthy and satisfying relationship with her husband.
Chris W said,
January 29, 2008 at 7:11 am
One more thing… I should clarify about a part in my last comment. Rather, I should stress the education part. I did not mean for anything to be forced upon anyone, ultimately whether to bear or not bear children and the facilities to do either.
LambsWirth said,
January 29, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I am honestly - and completely without sarcasm - confused, my friends. I’m wondering if someone could gently explain this to me.
Forgive me, but doesn’t the mentality of the Chinese government and of those who have chosen a life of perpetual contraception, through sterilization or otherwise, come from the same place where children are a burden? And isn’t the fact that there exists “all those hundreds of thousands of emotionally and developmentally disabled Romanian orphans still being slowly neglected to death in orphanages” a sign of the same thing? Isn’t the underlying idea: we “can’t” care for these “things”, and it is therefore our “right” to not have them around?
Don’t get me wrong! I *do* believe that God does not call all people to use the biological fertility He gave them! Absolutely!! Priests and religious sisters take vows to not use their God-given fertility and the Catholic church venerates them, uses them as examples, and praises them for the decision because it is a decision of love. They are doing it out of love for their Creator, and choosing instead to focus on building their spiritual families, which far, far, far outnumber the members of biological families!
But I also believe that He doesn’t ask anyone to do away with that fertility. I mean, I don’t want to be fat. Being fat is not for me and the results of it scare the hell out of me. But I have never considered cutting out part of my digestive system. If I don’t want to be fat, isn’t it my responsibility to use my “hunger” responsibly using cues that my body gives me? Doesn’t the concept of “cause and effect” come from the sciences?
Even our appendix, which we no longer use, isn’t removed until it causes a life-threatening problem. I’m confused as to why someone would suggest it is OK to cut out fully healthy organs simply because they may cause a life*style*-treatening problem. And by making such a permanent change to a person’s body, doesn’t that make her or him a slave to a single choice they made once upon a time? I mean, I understand that no government should have jurisdiction over our reproductive organs and I understand that our sexuality is our responsibility to regulate, but why is it such an overwhelming opinion that anyone, including even ourselves, should have full CONTROL over fertility?
I’m sincerely not asking this to get a rise out of anyone! I just don’t understand. I don’t know if its because I am no longer a slave to the need of control over every aspect of my life. I don’t know. Maybe it’s because I have opened up my heart to using the joys and struggles of my life to deepen my relationship with my Creator, and I can’t rationalize it being a “human right” to objectify the lives of others to the point of being “things” I want or “things” that burden me…
I also am sorry this is so long.
Ha!
LambsWirth said,
January 29, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Aha! I indeed apologize for the length of my last post. After reviewing your previous post, NFP (because of the semantics of words like choice and reproductive rights. Those two things have two different meanings for both of us, so I don’t feel we can even begin to debate on it, knowing we can’t agree on terms.), I realize that this was probably and inappropriate place for my questions.
Peace.
Rose said,
January 30, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Yes, Catholics do seem to like to invoke the Chinese one-child policy and the horrors it entails — seemingly, without ever realizing the effect of what CAUSED it to come to that. They always seem to think that the Chinese came up with this policy just to be cruel, completely rejecting the idea that maybe a billion people (almost one sixth of the world’s population) being born into a single country might have strained that country’s resources to its utmost.
Can you not see that the current horrors in China are the direct result of unrestrained breeding? If, as you wish, the entire human race becomes Catholic, pitches their contraceptives, practices ONLY NFP and makes sure that conception can happen with every act of intercourse — even to women who don’t want children, to women who can’t afford children, to women with congenital hereditary health problems that could be passed on to children, and women with health problems that could be exacerbated by having children — guess what the end result is? Perhaps a population so large that the government makes pro-natalist religious policies anathema and cracks down on breeding to draconian levels?
I’m not seeing any understanding in cause and effect here. Honestly, the reason we DON’T have a one-child policy here in the States is more than likely because we’re actually managing our population at the replacement level, through the widespread use of contraception.
Catherine said,
February 5, 2008 at 3:42 am
Rose,
It’s a bit simplistic to blame the poverty in China on overpopulation. That’s because such an idea doesn’t take the idea of inequality into consideration. On a global scale, it’s been demonstrated that there is no overpopulation; rather, there’s an inequality of resource allocation. I’ll bet that a nonbiased study of China (as if such a thing could happen) will show something similar. It’s certainly true in the United States.
Contraception leads to abortion. There’s no way that Roe v. Wade would have happened without Griswold v. Connecticut first. That’s the case that created widespread contraceptive use and thus turned sex from something special to be kept and shared judiciously, into little more than a contact sport. Generally, when there’s more casual sex (a result of contraception) there tend to be more abortions.
So no, I don’t believe it’s “cause and effect.” The cause of the one-child policy in China is NOT overpopulation. It’s the fact that the elite don’t want to share and share alike when it comes to resources. Put more bluntly, it’s because those at the top of the food chain don’t see human beings when they look at the folks at the bottom of the food chain. Rather, they just see inconveniences.
Rose said,
February 9, 2008 at 4:12 am
It’s a bit simplistic to blame the poverty in China on overpopulation.
Just like it’s a bit simplistic to blame water for wetting things. Overpopulation leads to a devaluing of life — why value that which you’ve got a BILLION of? Do you place intrinsic value on every grain of sand on a vast beach?
Contraception leads to abortion.
That’s absurd. The entire purpose of contraception is to prevent pregnancy, therefore eliminating the need for abortions. If you never get pregnant, you’ll never need an abortion. Widespread education on the use of contraceptives and widespread availability of affordable contraceptives drastically cuts down on the number of abortions performed. All the scientific evidence shows that abortion rates are the lowest in countries where sex education and contraceptives are readily available. Look at Sweden — their teen pregnancy rate is TINY and the quality of life is excellent. Look at Third World Africa, where sex education and contraceptives are often unavailable — are they a bastion of wholly monogamous heterosexual marriage? Last I checked there was a major AIDS epidemic going on and prostitution was rampant.
I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that sex wasn’t a contact sport to some people before the existence of modern contraceptives, and that everyone paired off in wholly monogamous heterosexual marriages before Griswold vs. Connecticut. Read your history — the excesses of the ancient Romans make modern society look mannered by comparison. Condoms have been in use for centuries, and the ancient Chinese even came up with semi-effective birth control pills. Women were having abortions in this country long before it became legal; the biggest difference is that now they aren’t dying of septicemia and blood loss in droves afterward anymore.
I’ve seen some tortured logic in my day, but madam, you have absconded with the cake here.
So my choice as a woman who doesn’t want kids is to either become a nun and never have sex, or breed virally if I get married? Wow, what workable and attractive choices THOSE are.
But ultimately, I am glad you gals are out there. The world must be peopled, and God knows I’M not going to help (especially when I could pass down the family legacy of schizophrenia.) You can have my two spots in the replacement rate with my blessing, and I’ll just continue on in my happy marriage and happy life without ‘em. Mmmwah!
Blue said,
February 16, 2008 at 3:39 am
Thanks be to God for your fortitude and endurnace regarding the large number of rather personal attacks of many people
Well, I get the distinct feeling if this blogger hadn’t started matters by calling an entire segment of society “evil incarnate”, none of ‘em would have ever noticed this blog exists.
Welcome back, sacharine sarcasm.
The word is “saccharin,” ma’am. [Actually, it turns out it's 'saccharine' with an 'e'--did you run *your* spellchecker??] If you’re going to hold yourself up as a NFP pundit, it really might help your credibility if you’d PLEASE just run spellcheck once in awhile. I also don’t see how someone who feels no compunction about labeling me and people like me “evil incarnate” can imagine she’s above being snarked back. Honestly, if I had written an ill-spelled, ill-reasoned diatribe full of blatant contradictions and logical fallacies ripping on Catholics, I’d wholly expect to get snarked for it. This is the Internet, after all.
I know that in my first Childfree post I covered population topics as related to reasons for being childfree, and hence your once again lengthy response.
That’s just it — you didn’t cover overpopulation topics in any way, you pooh-poohed them. Denying that overpopulation exists despite all evidence to the contrary isn’t “covering” it, it’s ignoring it. “Depopulation is the new overpopulation!” declareth she, as blithely as Vogue magazine declares pink to be the new black. I know you can type the words “cognitive dissonance,” but can you recognize it?
So we’ve got an example of what happens when people are allowed to breed unchecked until overpopulation threatens everyone’s quality of life (China) and examples of what happens when all recourse to safe contraception and abortion are taken away by the state (Romania.) Women with more than ten kids used to be called “heroine mothers” in Romania and received all kinds of perks, including free cars. Yet nearly no one aspired to be a heroine mother. I wonder why?
What folks here also aren’t taking into account is that human beings were using birth control far longer than the Catholic church has even existed. Griswold v. Connecticut barely registers in significance as far as the scope of contraceptive use through the ages. The ancients were using silphium and other herbs as oral contraceptives before Christ was even born — what’s changed is that the early Christian church leaders didn’t like the idea that their flocks were being limited in number and proscribed the use of contraceptives of any kind. Better that one should drink herbal tea every day as to ward off unwanted pregnancy than the retroactive birth control practiced by other ancient civilizations, like the Spartans and Greeks, who would expose unwanted infants to the elements, I think.
Look, if you don’t want to use birth control, fine. Don’t. But as you are a Christian, perhaps you could exercise some Christian charity and not call other people “evil incarnate” for disagreeing with you. Or does Christian charity only apply to those who believe as you do? Does being a Christian entitle you to abuse non-Christians at will, because we obviously aren’t real human beings?
Chris W said,
February 20, 2008 at 4:54 am
“But as you are a Christian, perhaps you could exercise some Christian charity and not call other people “evil incarnate” for disagreeing with you. Or does Christian charity only apply to those who believe as you do? Does being a Christian entitle you to abuse non-Christians at will, because we obviously aren’t real human beings?”
Good point, Blue. I’d like to point out, also, that there is such a thing as childfree Christians. (My wife and I are part of this).
Rafe said,
February 20, 2008 at 6:18 am
I’ve been anxiously awaiting an explanation for why somebody who choses not to have kids for personal reasons is evil incarnate a few months now NFPworks. The only actual response we got was humans aren’t pets or cats, which is pretty much obvious. Why are we evil ?
nfpworks said,
February 26, 2008 at 11:44 pm
No contraceptive is 100% effective. Abortion is just a backup contraceptive. Contraceptives–and this includes NFP used with a contraceptive mentality–just give way to more promiscuity, affairs, an increase in premarital sex that can only be linked to an increase in abortions.
Even though the two issues are closely related, this isn’t a discussion site for abortion. Any more posts that are meant to inflame on that topic will be deleted.
Btw, the “evil incarnate” comment has elicited the most commentary. I’ll post mroe on this soon. I wasn’t calling *people* inherently evil, but the child free mentality which divorces sex from procreation and makes sex a dishonest act. That’s my position, which I know you don’t agree with. Guess what? I don’t care, and posting vitriol is not going to change anyone’s mind.
Cycles said,
March 12, 2008 at 1:52 am
So. Why not adopt? Are children only viable when they’re concepts and not actual human beings that must be provided for? What is going to happen to all of these children who are born to parents who literally cannot provide for them? Who will help? Will you help?
Cycles said,
March 13, 2008 at 12:21 am
I guess the above question got through your screening processes. I would love it if you addressed the real problems with the nfp method - because it is just plain stupid to assume that this is the correct method for everyone. You don’t seem to find a thing wrong with it despite the excellent points that are being brought up that go against what you are saying. Don’t you want to address these points or are you just going to delete them and pretend like they didn’t happen?
You’re not proving to be a very strong spokes person for this cause and guess what - when you start a blog regarding a topic such as this you in a sense become a representative for the cause. When you spout off with childish retorts such as “Guess what? I don’t care” you make your cause look like a joke. Just thought I’d point that out to you. I’m sure this comment will be deleted like all the others that don’t agree with the nfp way of life.
nfpworks said,
March 13, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I’d love to address the “real problems” of NFP, but there really aren’t any compared to contraception. I’m sure you find this laughable, but I’m more than willing to address your specific rational questions about it.
The reason why I haven’t responded to the vast majority of comments is because many of them are vitriolic (such as “I guess you delete comments by people who don’t kiss your movements *ss” You call *me* childish?!).
Saying “Guess what? I don’t care” isn’t childish; it’s frank.
Cycles said,
March 13, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I do call you childish. Because instead of addressing points that I made - in a mature manner at first - you deleted them. If you really want to open up a forum for debate (which, sorry, the nature of this site does lend itself to that) then you must respect other people’s opinions. You don’t have to agree with them, but you could at least respond to them rather then just deleting them. That doesn’t make any sense to me - and yes, it did strike me as childish. I’m just being frank with you here.
So here is a question for you - suppose you have a disease that makes a rather unplanned pregnancy a big health risk. Meaning, it could cause risk to the mother if it wasn’t handled the right way. Suppose that any pregnancy - any at all - needed to be carefully planned and monitored. Wouldn’t birth control be a better option for a couple like this who is not Catholic? If you are crying out for the sanctity of life doesn’t that include the potential mother as well? That is where I get caught up and confused with your points here. It seems that the potential life is more important than anything else - including being able to provide for the child or the risks that the mother might be taking on by a ‘natural family planning’ method.
And what about those who simply don’t feel drawn to motherhood (and, also are not Catholic)? Some women just don’t feel like they would be interested in being a mother, you know? Forcing motherhood on them or making them feel bad about not wanting to be mothers is just about the nastiest thing I could think of. I get that you think of it as a sin…but I really don’t think it is your job to condemn people for their sins. I really don’t. That is God’s job and no one else’s. Again, just being frank with you here.
nfpworks said,
March 13, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Cycles, your presupposition is that NFP is not as effective for postponing or avoiding pregnancy for, as you gave the example, health reasons. It seems that you’re not familiar with NFP and how it works (I may be wrong here) and you are thinking NFP is its less effective predecessor, the Rhythm method. It also seems that you’re not familiar with the clinical studies proving the effectiveness of NFP as a birth control, not to mention the anecdotal experience of Mother Teresa’s nuns in India who teach a simpler form of NFP called the Standard Days Method, and had great success with preventing pregnancy in poverty-racked India. See more on effectiveness studies here: http://www.njnfp.org/resources/links.php#link06
I’m sorry you feel that I’m “condemning people for their sins” by criticizing their choices and associating themselves with a movement that, in some quarters, reduces the great gift of a child to at best an object of frustration and at worst a parasite to society. I’ve already stated the difference between calling an action evil and a person evil, and I was not doing the latter. There may be (and usually are ) mitigating factors (such as encountering an enraging article on the web describing the worst of the worst of the CF movement) for why someone chooses to do something bad (such as use a tasteless phrase to criticize one’s enemies), but it still makes that act objectively bad/evil/sinful.
Cycles said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:30 am
But with NFP you still have that increased risk that you don’t necessarily have with the forms of birth control that are out on the market. For someone such as myself - a type one diabetic with a non-cancerous tumor on her liver (which could burst and cause internal bleeding and then death as a result of said bleeding) even that thin risk is too much. I have to sit down with my doctor and plan. Having a child, when you’re a person who isn’t in the healthy mainstream, is an incredibly difficult undertaking.
So really, when you talk about this stuff, you have to consider every single person out there. That’s a lot of people! If I were to get pregnant before I was ready there is a high chance that it would kill both myself and the unborn child. I’m sorry, but does that sound like a good idea to you? That is why I chose the stay child free until I am confident that nothing bad would happen. And, yes, that does involve birth control.
But that is my belief system. I don’t really think that you can say that birth control = evil. In your group sure - it is evil. But that is just within your group. I’m sharing my story with you because I …guess I want you to realize that there is more than meets the eye when it comes to this topic, and that condemning (or what ever you’d like to call what you’ve been doing) people for not following your life choice is just silly. I strongly urge you to love and accept your fellow man.
But..until then. I’m evil. I’m evil/bad/sinful in the eyes of the Catholic church because I don’t freely have children. It’s strange to think that a religion that claims to follow Jesus would condemn me as such. More then that..it’s just plain sad.
[Editor's Comment: I've made no judgement on the state of *anyone's soul* on my own behalf or on the Church's behalf. I'm sorry that Cycles continues to receive it that way, which just show that she continues to misunderstand the very nature of Christianity, good, evil and the very notion of personhood.]
Cycles said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I don’t particularly care for your “editors comment”. I don’t think you really get the concept of loving and accepting your fellow man. I fail to see how my choice to not have children is in endangering any personhood - because to have children would be endangering my own personal right to life at the moment. Do adults not count here? I would honestly like to know.
I understand the concept of Christianity, good, evil, and the very notion of personhood. However - I don’t understand it in your terms. When I think of Christianity I like of love. When I think of good I think of loving and respecting my fellow man. When I think of evil I think of people who are quick to judge based on text that they probably do not fully understand. When I think of personhood I think of everyones right to life (and not just unconcieved children).
So clearly I am wrong. And honestly, if you would like to continue this discussion why not address my points? All you’ve done - a bit immaturely in my own humble opinion - is leave a snarky comment at the bottom of my comment accusing me of not ‘understanding’. That is what I was talking about with the immaturity earlier, you know. You’re so quick to defend yourself that you appear to have missed the point all together.