Natural Family Planning

97 Comments

1. 

   Cycles said,

   March 13, 2008 at 9:14 pm

   But my comments weren’t asinine at first, thank you very much. They were valid points. I’m sorry if you are offended by my truth, but you’re making yourself a target for people who might have different opinions by running this blog. After the first deletion I got the idea that you might be handling this a bit childishly. So I gave back what you handed out. I’m not sure why that would surprise you.

   I do appreciate you apologizing for the way you have phrased your distaste for childfree people in the past. That is most certainly growth on your behalf. You don’t need to step away from your own beliefs - you just might want to steer clear of expressing them in such an ugly manner, you know? Because you make yourself out to be a hypocrite when you do that - on one hand you’re bemoaning the fact that the mean childfree group came and got rude with you but then you’re turning around and doing the same thing. In fact, you kind of started this with ugly and uninformed statements about the other side. Are you really that surprised that you started getting back what you gave out? I mean..really? That big of a shock?

   Carry on with your beliefs. Good for you for having them. But remember kindness first and foremost.

2. 

   nfpworks said,

   March 13, 2008 at 10:23 pm

   As I stated in the apologia, there is such a thing as natural law. I speak in the language of faith because it is the language that I know. However, one can know a moral order in the light of natural reason without the aid of revealation from God. Take Gandhi, for example. Now, he did not apparently know Jesus Christ as Lord during his lifetime, but he was able to see by natural reason that frustrating the designs of nature when it came to fertility and procreation would have drastic consequences. An anthropologist, Lionel Tiger (yes, that’s his actual name) knew in the 60’s that when the Pill hit mainstream it would effect society in a big way. He’s not a Christian or a believer by any stretch to my knowledge, but he knew from his work with primates that when you mess with sex and reproduction, that has massive behavioral consequences for a society. And he showed that in his work. These are examples of people coming to know the truth about contraception/ sterilization without the aid of HM Church.

3. 

   Francois said,

   March 15, 2008 at 2:51 am

   I’m sorry you felt my words to be a verbal sword through your very person, an attack on your very way of life and a sort of moral graffitti on the edifice of your choices.

   I didn’t feel that “your words were a verbal sword through my very person,” because you would need to actually come up with valid and coherent criticisms in order to do that. All you gave us was an ill-spelled, self-contradictory string of ad hominems, faulty causal assumptions, and false dilemmas. Your self-aggrandizement here is even less becoming than your original attack on the CF.

   an attack on your very way of life and a sort of moral graffitti on the edifice of your choices

   No, I thought it was an illogical hate speech diatribe directed at me and people like me.

   P.S. — Sigmund Freud thought that women secretly coveted the genitals of men and that cocaine was a non-addictive wonder drug, too. You can’t expect the man to be anything but the product of his time.

4. 

   NESmith said,

   March 15, 2008 at 10:53 pm

   You know, there’s a term for this post.

   Fauxpology.

   If you think this is any kind of meaningful, fully emotionally recalcitrant expression of apology, then you have larger problems than a viewpoint so staggered by the delusions of the worst religious fundamentalism.

   If it weren’t genuine, your outlook would be almost funny.

5. 

   Allronix said,

   March 15, 2008 at 11:39 pm

   I am childfree because of health reasons. There are some nasty genetic elements in my family tree, and I’ve had a long struggle with mental illness. Because of those mental health troubles, I am on medication that could cause birth defects on top of the aforementioned genetic issues. I would have no business inflicting all of the above on a child.

   I am a proud “aunt” to six children, ranging in age from 21 to 4, only one of which is a genetic relation (my half-sister’s kid). I do not feel I have to be a mother to act as a positive force in their lives.

   Bearing a child and being responsible for another human life is an awesome responsibility, and I believe it should only be undertaken by those who are willing and able to manage such a monumental task. There are also consequences beyond one’s self and one’s family to consider - the Earth’s limited resources, the prospect the child will have to obtain a good education and profitable employment, the loss of time and money that could go towards charitable works. There is also the possibility the kid will turn out to be a bad egg, despite all one’s work. There is no guarantee one’s child will care for or provide for their parents in their old age, either.

6. 

   Ashley said,

   March 15, 2008 at 11:54 pm

   You’re not very good at apologizing are you? Most people don’t insult the people that they are “apologizing” to. All I’m getting from you is that contaception is bad because it allows people to act in a way that you don’t agree with. There is no such thing as a natural law. There is no such thing as universal morality. Everything is morally relative which is why it’s so funny when conservative people decry it.

   All morally relative means is supporting morals that work best for you. It’s just that some things work best for everybody. So society (and even humans in general) adopt it. We consider killing bad because we all know that we wouldn’t last long if people could kill willy nilly. So we all come together and agree not to kill because it saves our own skin. Because we as a society can gang up and punish those that do. And it still relative. Some don’t believe in the death penalty and some do. Some are extreme and don’t believe in killing in self defense. We give people less time in jail if it was a crime of passion. Some people think that’s ridiculous. It’s all morally relative.

   And who cares about what is unnatural. I will never understand this obsession with the “natural” people have going on. Especially since they are only concerned about the natural when it’s convient. The computer you typed this post on isn’t natural. You’re probably wearing synthetic fabrics in your clothing. It you were speeding and got in a serious car crash you’d expect emergency doctors to intervene with unnatural methods to save you life. But all of a sudden when it comes to reproduction you’re concerned about what’s natural.

7. 

   shadow117 said,

   March 16, 2008 at 12:48 am

   Because, obviously, having children one does not want or cannot support is utterly and wonderfully moral and brilliant. Oh, wait, I’m sorry–I forgot all fertile women are supposed to be broodmares for rich, infertile women. My bad.

   Natural law is red in tooth and claw, my darling dear. Civilization has always been in opposition to “natural law”–which supports such lovely things as mass starvation and epidemics. You may certainly draw the line and declare “nature only beyond this point” when it comes to your repoductive organs. I’ll say my brain is more important than my bits any day–and infinitely more important than any “preconceived babies”–or conceived “babies” for that matter.

   News break–the whole world isn’t Catholic and it isn’t merely because we haven’t been exposed to the “truth” thereof.

8. 

   somecfwoman said,

   March 16, 2008 at 3:14 pm

   I still fail to see why you equate the choice not to have children with being evil. I am far from being an evil person. I actually voulenteer with youth programs and attend college. I am infertile, and am HAPPY about it. *gasp shock amazement.* So, I’m evil….because I don’t have children? I’ve been having plenty of “relations” with my husband and have yet to get pregnant…gee…I guess God doesn’t mind me being CF. Not that I ever believed in monotheistic bull anyway.

   Take your self-rightious judgement and shove it please.

9. 

   Sanne said,

   March 16, 2008 at 3:47 pm

   Jesus was childfree.

   Publish this comment.

   I dare you.

10. 

    Fr. Patrick Donaghey, Pastor said,

    March 16, 2008 at 3:54 pm

    God does not appreciate pseudo-apologias that reek of the sin of pride and that mock the Church with an assumption of arrogance. You have forgotten that your lambasting of the ‘childfree’ does not make exception for the servants of the Church, we whom God has required to be celibate and childfree in order to further His glory. I would direct you to pray on the matter of humility; we of the clergy do not approve of your opinion, as you will find out if your consult the members of your own parish and diocese. God wills that the clergy be childfree; who are you to denigrate His command.

    I will, of course, pray for your soul and your possible redemption into His favour.

    Fr. Patrick Donaghey, Pastor
    St. Stephen The Martyr
    Lilburn, GA

11. 

    strawberry muffin said,

    March 16, 2008 at 7:38 pm

    That’s not an apology at all. When you apologize, you take back the hurtful words you said, express regret for saying them, and ask for forgiveness. You do not basically repeat the original hurtful words and add a little transparent spin to them. Calling childfree people “evil” and calling the childfree lifestyle “evil” are the same thing. If the act of being childfree is so “evil,” it stands to reason that only “evil” people would engage in it. Ergo, you just repeated your insult and didn’t apologize at all. Furthermore…

    1.) There’s no such thing as “natural law,” unless you’re talking about Hobbes, in which case, you should be talking about an ungoverned society rather than reproduction.
    2.) Gandhi, for all his merit, is still a product of his times. During his lifetime, most of society believed in the very paternalistic “we must protect women from themselves” BS feminism worked so hard to get rid of.
    3.) I’d like to see you make a reasoned, rational, logical argument to support your view that being childfree is morally wrong. I believe that for something to be morally wrong, it must hurt or violate the rights of others. To say that something is morally wrong just because you say it is or because “it just is” is not an argument, that’s a cop out. Being childfree does not affect anyone other than the childfree person. It does not hurt anyone or violate anyone’s rights. And BTW, if you ever do attempt to make that argument, don’t even waste a line like “it hurts the kids who aren’t born” because you can’t harm or violate the rights of the nonexistent.

12. 

    Britgirl said,

    March 16, 2008 at 8:31 pm

    As was said in the comments you’ve already deleted, you did not apologize. You merely restated exactly what you did in your original post. And, as I’m sure you’re going to delete any comment that doesn’t line up with yours - showing how afraid you are of any view that’s different from your own - commentators will be leaving them on my blog… so you can be sure the world will get to see them whether you want them to or not.

13. 

    Real Christian said,

    March 16, 2008 at 10:53 pm

    Tell me again how many children did The Christ have? Tell me again how many did ST Augustine have? Tell me again how many did Mother Thresea have? Tell me how many did St Joseph have? Tell me again how many did St Thomas have? Tell me again how many did Thomas Merton have? St Maximilian Kolbe (who laid down his life in Auschwitz to save the life of a father). How many did Pope John Paul II have? Many people are childfree to give their life to an altruistic life.

    Real Christianity has long tradition of people who sacrifice their fertility as an expression of agape. Calling those who chose childfree lifestyles evil is on par with claiming God is evil for calling those people and people such as myself to make that sacrifice. To call anyone evil is to comment about the twig in their eye while ignoring the beam in one’s own.

    Being Christian does not mean being slave to mere biology. Christianity demands that all action take place in the concept of agape and altruism. It requires us to not be rigid but to think about our actions in light of altruism and God’s love. If the action will hurt people then we are obligated not to take it. Thus a true Christian with the possibility of having a child who will suffer is obligated to consider that child’s future first. If a real Christian knows she or he will birth a child to pain and suffering - then in the spirit of agape- they will remain child free. To do anything else is a sin against God and that child. What we want is secondary to the will of God. To play roulette with a life is where one finds evil. To forgo desire is where one finds love.

    Procreation is not a sacrament. Nor is it a biological impairitive. Unlike creations of God that act on instinct, God gave us the gifts of forethought and compassion. We can, and must, utilize our capacity to think about the consequences before we choose to begin a family. To bring a child into suffering or neglect is evil against the most vulnerable and innocent. For many, the Godly choice is to opt out. To condemn them for it is as great a sin as showing disrespect to God.

14. 

    CFSinceSix said,

    March 17, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    This was by no means an “apologia.” When you supposedly apologize and then continue with a justification as to why you did what you originally did completely negates the supposed apology. It’s like saying, “I’m sorry I stole your dress, but if you had only let me borrow it I wouldn’t have had to steal it.”

    Did you pray over your apology? You talk about how you “speak in the language of faith because it is the language that you know” - I ask you to consider to also learn the language of “hope” and the language of “charity,” since you speak of, or in, neither.

    And as for quoting Ghandi (a product of his times, mind you) and Freud (who was doped up on cocaine and stuck on his own sexual complexes) or any other quotes that support your world view can be equally countered by quotes supporting the childfree lifestyle.

    Further, don’t forget that God does hold special in his heart the childfree because they are not burdened with the rearing of children and are free to spread His word. Where as the childed simply spread the word to their own. Not only did the Son of God Himself not have children, but so did many other saints. They simply could not have had children - they would not have had time to spread God’s word.

    I realize you will only allow comments that accept your apology or cheer you on, but responses your pathetic attempts at an apology - which is really a thinly disguised show of intelerance, lack of acceptance, and non-generosity - are being displayed and written elsewhere.

    I am only sorry that your blog is receiving the attention that it is, since even bad press gives attention to what should simply be left to wither by its own hubris.

15. 

    nfpworks said,

    March 17, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    Apologia, as you probably know, means “explanation.” I’m aware my apology doesn’t really mean much or anything to people who are holding onto their viewpoints, but asi es la vida. As to your judgement that I only alllow comments that pat me on the back–take a close look. The ratio of kind/ supportive comments to critical/vitriolic is easily 1:10. I only delete ones with profanity and inappropriate threats or comments. Hence, I posted yours.

16. 

    nfpworks said,

    March 17, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Thanks, NE Smith. Clever word. I’ll take note.

17. 

    BreadBox said,

    March 17, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    If you MEANT to say “explanation” you should have used the word, “explanation”. And you use the word “apology” in this blog post’s title, and then go on to say, in so many words, was that you meant “apologia”, as this is an explanation for calling willifully childfree “evil incarnate”.

    Asi es la vida? I think you should stick to debate attempts in English. Even then, you don’t do so well.

18. 

    CFSinceSix said,

    March 17, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    The problem with your “apologia,” nfpworks, is that your explanation is not put forth with any hint of regret for your actions or an asking of forgiveness, but merely a justification for your actions.

    Therefore, your “apologia” is an explanation (and further still justification and rationalization) rather than an *apology.*

    I suggest you look up the full definition of the word “apology” and “apologia” before you go educating others. As with the your explanation and rationalization as to why you think childfree people are evil, you simply take and quote what you feel supports your viewpoints rather than taking the whole into consideration.

19. 

    Childree_Christian said,

    March 17, 2008 at 4:45 pm

    I’m childfree and I’m a GOOD christian. I’m NOT evil because I don’t want children of my own and your apology is meaningless because all you are doing is explaining and excusing your self-righteous meanness.

    My favorite great aunt growing up was childfree as well as never married. Was she evil? Hardly. She served her family, her church and her community. Because she never had kids of her own, she always had time to spend with my sister and me.

    I don’t really care what your definition of “evil” is or how you think you were misconstrued. You clearly were not. You want to point fingers about things that are not your business in the first place like you’re some right hand of God. You are not above me or any other HUMAN on this planet. Stop acting like you are.

20. 

    Childree_Christian said,

    March 17, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    Oh, and by the way, not everyone who is CF is a militant child-hater. I do NOT refer to children or parents in a derogatory fashion. Thank you.

21. 

    nfpworks said,

    March 17, 2008 at 4:53 pm

    Childfree_Christian, I’m glad to hear that. Though I know you don’t think much of me, at least together we can pray for those of the CF who *are* militant child-haters. Unfortunately, those are some of the loudest in the CF world that I found.

22. 

    Fr. Eric Sternberg said,

    March 17, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    To be sure, I am very impressed by the discussion on this topic and the clear passion with which it is expressed points to how important this issue is to the human family.

    However, I am also rather surprised by some of the comments that have been posted by Christian persons.

    The Natural Law and the teachings of the Catholic Church clearly show that one of the ends of married love (meaning heterogenital sexual intercourse) is the procreation and education of children. To willfully delete that aspect of married love is objectively wrong.

    To use the example of Christ or St. Thomas, St. Maximillian Kolbe, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, John Paul II as examples of ‘childfree’ persons is rather off the mark. This is namely because there were not married. An unmarried person does not legitimately face the question of having or not having children (and if they do there is a whole other moral question in play.) Therefore the cite them as examples of positive ‘childfree’ choosing is to miss the point and to move the conversation outside of its legitimate place.

    Also, to insuitate that the celibate clergy are somehow decidely ‘childfree’ or that they are also example of a positive ‘childfree’ mentality is completely errant. Again, this is because the Catholic clergy is celibate, unmarried. Arguements against a ‘childfree’ ideology in no way denigrate the clergy and to claim that celibate priests or bishops are examples of a ‘childfree’ lifestyle is an utterly utilitarian arguement and does significant harm to a right notion of spiritual fatherhood and the ecclesiastical understanding of a priest as father of Christian faithful.

    Further, the Church, has clearly and openly condemned the notions of the ‘childfree’ ideology in documents such as Casti Conubii, Gaudium et Spes, Humane Vitae, the Code of Canon Law, Evangelium Vitae, and Familiaris Consortio.

    It is true that parents may legitimately decide to postpone the having of children or decide to not have children. Still, they may do so only for a grave reason and even if they legitimately decide this, it is not right to use aritificial contraception or sterilization techniques. The notion that a married couple may simply choose to be permanently without children goes agains the Natural Law (which all are bound to follow) and the teachings of the Church (which all Catholics are bound to follow.)

    Natural Family Planning, in its practice as much as its understanding, is a great and positive witness to the goodness of family life and provides both a correct and very powerful method of discerning rightly the size of a family, while providing tremendous biological/medical assistance to women and giving a vehicle of potential spiritual growth for a married couple.

    May all here recieve every goodness in their lives and come to find not only a truth, but the truth.

23. 

    Feh said,

    March 17, 2008 at 6:24 pm

    Oh, and I’d add here…my decision to breed only affects me. If my partner really wants a child, he will have to leave and meet someone who shares his beliefs. If my parents want to interact with children more, they will seek out the opportunity to mentor or volunteer with children. When people decide to breed and refuse to do any work to raise their children to be productive members of society, they affect everyone.

24. 

    Ellytoad said,

    March 17, 2008 at 6:36 pm

    SATAN is “evil incarnate”. Evil is a mighty tall term to ascribe to a group of people who have made a personal life choice that affects no one in a remotely negative way. Come, leave us decent human beings alone.

25. 

    CFSinceSix said,

    March 17, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    I actually came back to ask nfpworks one question. nfpworks, in your “About” section you say what this blog is about, and I quote:

    “This blog is about the beauty of Natural Family Planning (NFP).

    While we’ll touch on the snares of chemical contraceptives quite a bit (it’s not a well-covered issue, ladies & gents), our main focus will be to lift up the beauty of NFP.”

    My question to you then is: why the editorials on a childfree lifestyle? It has nothing to do with natural family planning (as most people who are childfree do NOT affect other people OR their lives) and so I wonder why the blog postings regarding the childfree. Do you feel threatened by our choice and our decisions? We (and our lack-of-brood) leave you alone. Yet, you feel it is necessary to condemn and judge us. Further, when you bring your children in to the world, that *also* affects us.

    Stick to what you know.

26. 

    nfpworks said,

    March 17, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    If you comment, please stick to the post under which you are commenting. If you have something to say about a previous post–great. Go post it there. If the combox is closed for comments, there’s a reason. I will delete comments in a post if there are not related to that particular post directly.

27. 

    strawberry muffin said,

    March 17, 2008 at 11:48 pm

    Fr. Sternberg:
    I know you’re paid to parrot the Vatican, but take off your priest hat and think reasonably for a minute. Do you honestly think it’s more objectively right for someone to have a child they don’t want so they can emotionally abuse and neglect it? I fail to see how willfully bringing a child into the world when you know you’re an unfit parent could ever be morally preferable to sparing that child a life of the pain and misery of always knowing he/she’s not loved and not wanted.

28. 

    G said,

    March 18, 2008 at 3:15 am

    Catholics are not allowed to use birth control –- yes, we get it. But to me, Catholicism is just another religion among many, some of which denominations insist that their adherents cannot receive blood transfusions, cannot use technology of any kind, must eschew all medical treatment in favor of prayer, must never eat pork or beef, or even that they must show their great faith by drinking strychnine and handling poisonous snakes. Every one of the above religious denominations believes that theirs is the One True Faith, and the One Truth.

    Yet still, none of the above practices seems like “the truth” to me, and having freedom of religion as promised in the U.S. Constitution, I can simply refuse to practice any and all of the above religions. I can eat what I like, use a computer and drive a car, accept modern medical treatments, stay safely away from poison and snakes, and use birth control if I like, and I can get sterilized if I like. I can also live my entire married life without having any children. To me, no religion that requires me to have unwanted children can ever be “the truth.”

    I’m happily married to a man that I love dearly, who also does not want children. How would it be better for us not to have married each other, simply because we aren’t going to produce children? I’m not keeping my husband from marrying a woman who wants kids – he wouldn’t be married at all if he didn’t have the option of marrying a CF woman. How would it be in any way constructive to keep a man and a woman who truly love each other from marrying just because they both don’t want children? I simply do not believe that true goodness and happiness can only be achieved through one’s gonads.

    And the difference here is: childfree people are not the ones calling CATHOLICS “selfish” and “evil.” All of the namecalling in this debate is coming from the NFPworks blogger, and what she hopes to accomplish by picking such a fight is beyond me.

29. 

    Fr. Eric Sternberg said,

    March 18, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    Dear strawberry muffin,

    I did mention in my post that there are legitimate reasons for postponing childbearing - and certainly if there was a couple that was going to ‘emotionally abuse and neglect’ their child, that would fit legitimate reasons.

    Of course, I would hope that if such a couple were Christian, and especially if they were Catholic, they would seek out counsel and help from their parish.

30. 

    Getalifealready said,

    March 18, 2008 at 6:52 pm

    Man, the level of nastiness in this comments box is unreal. Perhaps if you all had kids you’d be too busy to pull your hair out whining about what a blogger thinks. Can’t we all just get along?

31. 

    Getalifealready said,

    March 18, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    To quote the blogger Mark Shea about you folks:

    “Living demonstrations that evil is self-sterilizing. ” <– that about sums it up - don’t be mad at the blogger, your reaction demonstrates that she has hit a nerve. Perhaps deep inside you know she is right, the Church is right, and you are wrong.

32. 

    Stephen M. Tefftq said,

    March 18, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    NFPWorks,

    God bless you! Hang in there. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Keep up the good work.

33. 

    Mark Andrews said,

    March 19, 2008 at 12:26 am

    Just passing through, but after reading 100+ posts on 2 different threads, most of which heap hot coals on NFPWorks’ head, the phrase that comes to mind is:

    “Only a bit dog hollers.”

    To paraphrase the late Gov. Ann Richards (D-Texas), NFPWorks has “testicular fortitude.” Unlike the many critics who’ve visited here.

34. 

    AndrewAlexander said,

    March 19, 2008 at 2:23 am

    NFPWorks,

    Don’t let these guys worry you. Some people prefer the shadows on the wall to the light outside. If they hate you, it is because they first hated God. Those who are open to the truth will not spew hatred, nor return insult for insult, but to those who are blinded to truth, any attempt to forcefully open their eyes will result in insult.

    Y no me preocupo nada de que me responden, me importa muy poco

35. 

    Spenserian said,

    March 19, 2008 at 3:09 am

    All right, so as a childfree non-Catholic, I am evil incarnate for not following the Pope’s directive against birth control. Even though I’m not Catholic and do not take Catholic sacraments, etc., I must nonetheless do as the Pope says, or I am deemed “evil.”

    But tell me, are the 97% of practicing Catholics who don’t use the rhythm method evil incarnate too? Because according to a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, less than 3 percent of Catholic couples don’t use birth control.

    Which is more evil: not obeying the Pope’s orders when you aren’t and never have been Catholic (I’ve never been married either, for that matter) or disobeying the Pope when you ARE Catholic? Because it would appear that the vast majority of professed Catholics aren’t obeying his orders either.

36. 

    Different G said,

    March 19, 2008 at 4:38 am

    I actually don’t have a side in this whole thing. I’d rather not have 10 kids or be stuck childless. At this point, that’s far down the road anyway.

    I just want to point out that this recurring defense of “at least I’m not having kids and abusing them out of loathing” is quite weak. You actually would abuse a child? That would make one a monster whether they do have children or not.

37. 

    John Henry said,

    March 19, 2008 at 11:23 am

    And a hearty laugh at Fr Donaghey! You must be kidding, equating child-free married couples with child-free celibates of whatever stripe. And “we of the clergy do not approve” of the teachings of Humanae Vitae? Then shame on you! Kindly take up employment at your local Episcopal Church. Your views would fit in nicely over there.

    But at least you’re praying that we might find our way into His favor. Nice pompous sign-off. And we need to pray for humility? You are a walking self-parody.

38. 

    Dan said,

    March 19, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    I am rather shocked to see so many self-professed CF commenters that don’t grasp the difference between “childless” and “child free”.

    Additionally, saying “Oh, so I should have a child I don’t want?” is a strawman; the obvious answer is, “NO! You should WANT the child you were BLESSED WITH.”

39. 

    Peggy said,

    March 19, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    To each, his own. My life is not yours. Do what you want with your body, but don’t tell the rest of us what to do with ours. Judgement is God’s job alone, not yours.

40. 

    Renee said,

    March 19, 2008 at 4:16 pm

    I actually posted in the previous blog post, trying to raise the issue what if everyone was child-free and concerns for the elderly. There was so much hyper-personalization of my posts I didn’t come back to explain further. I should mention I have relatives who have no children, who are very grateful that I’ve chosen to open myself to having more children. And friends who are thinking of having larger families, because the lack of siblings/cousins in their own.

    Anyways can I ask a question?

    Is the problem with “Child-Free” thinking is we are seeing the kid part.

    Am I wrong?

    Someone correct me.

    Do they just see parents loving just babies and children?

    As parents we are not just called to love them as babies and children, then dump them. We are called to love children and all family members through out every stage of life, that’s why I brought up the issue of the elderly. Being a teenager is pretty hard, and it seemed every where I went nobody wanted teenagers, even parents don’t realize the messages they send their own children. It’s like we’re dumped at puberty, when we need our parents the most. As human beings we need to recognize that we aren’t having just ‘children’, children grow up. We are creating individuals that will have need as adults also.

41. 

    nfpworks said,

    March 19, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    Peggy et al: see the post/ previous comments responding to the accusation of judgement. I DO NOT JUDGE YOU OR THE STATE OF YOUR SOUL. However, we are also called not to be indifferent to sinful actions. Hence, my post and its wording. If you feel condemned by me, maybe that’s your conscience, not me, giving you a hard time, and maybe you should listen.

    I’m not perfect, nor do I pretend to be. Christians aren’t perfect, they’re just forgiven. And you can be as well.

    The truth will set you free–but first it will make you miserable. The latter part of the phrase is not scriptural, but it’s truth nevertheless. Truth is hard and love hurts, but that’s what makes it all worthwhile. What are you being called to?

42. 

    Ashley said,

    March 19, 2008 at 6:00 pm

    If you feel condemned by me, maybe that’s your conscience

    I’ve seen a few of your supporters say something similar. I’m not sure of the logic of your argument. That’s like saying if a person defends themselves after being called a murderer, it must be because they’re guilty. I think it is much more likely that people are flabbergasted at such vehement opposition to a perfectly moral and acceptable lifestyle choice.

    Additionally, saying “Oh, so I should have a child I don’t want?” is a strawman; the obvious answer is, “NO! You should WANT the child you were BLESSED WITH.”

    That is not a strawman argument. There is a saying: “You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”. All of the people won’t want kids. It has nothing to do with the state of their morals. All of the people aren’t going to be happy with the same life choices. That’s just life. There is nothing sinister or evil about it. The inability to understand that denotes an inability to grasp the complexities of life.

43. 

    Sanne said,

    March 19, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    If you think children are a blessing, then what’s the deal with ‘natural family planning’? You accept children as gifts from God, but at the same time, you’re trying to prevent them. Don’t kid yourself: natural family planning is still a trick so you can have sex without the hassle of having a baby: it’s just a lot less effective than a good ol’ condom.

    Hypocrites…

44. 

    nfpworks said,

    March 19, 2008 at 6:58 pm

    Spenserian, it seems that you actually don’t even know what modern NFP *is* because you referred in your comment to it as “the rhythm method,” which is an outdated and mostly ineffective method of family planning from the early/ mid twentieth century. Modern NFP, of which there are several methods, is 98-99% effective for postponing pregnancy and 80% effective in achieving pregnancy in couples that otherwise considered infertile. It’s my informed opinion that if the large amount of Catholics who currently contracept knew more of this type of information they would, in fact, switch to NFP.

    But NFP isn’t a “Catholic contraceptive” or just another family planning option, although some treat it that way. It’s a different way of life, which for Catholic involves faith, prayer and discernment, which fosters communication between spouses, which enriches relationships. It’s no wonder that NFP users have a 2-5% divorce rate.

45. 

    Spenserian said,

    March 19, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    You didn’t answer my question.

    Are the 97% of Catholics who use birth control in defiance of the Pope’s orders evil incarnate?

    Yes or no.

    I mean, if you’re going to call unmarried childfree non-Catholics EVIL for not following the Pope’s orders, what about those who take both Communion and the Pill on Sundays?

46. 

    Ashley said,

    March 19, 2008 at 7:26 pm

    It’s no wonder that NFP users have a 2-5% divorce rate.

    Or, it’s because they are more likely to be members of a religion (not just Catholocism) that pressures people not to get divorced even when they are extremely unhappy. Correlation is not causation.

47. 

    Cycles said,

    March 19, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    Getalifealready - why do you care what a bunch of people who don’t want or can’t have children think? Why does NFPworks care what they think? If this is an approved and desired family planning method for the Catholic community then more power to them. But when you start spouting off about a group that you don’t even understand in a public forum then you’re going to get some back lash. I can’t believe you’d be surprised by it.

    But what turns myself, and clearly a lot of other people, off about this isn’t that we all secretly want children or would actually be better off with children or that this strikes some kind of ‘chord’. It’s that we all know someone just like NFPworks in real life and are tired of them perpetuating negative ideas on something that they really don’t know much about to begin with. They are defending - and in many cases - are trying to clarify why they live the way they do. Read what these people say and try to understand. Consider what it is like to be in someone else’s shoes - what you do in life isn’t right for everyone else and vice versa.

    And instead of reading what the other side is saying and trying to learn what is all about you guys say nasty things about people who have made life choices that suit them (and incidentally aren’t hurting anyone else) - they are accused of being whorish, are told to shut up and go have babies, are likened to the incarnation of evil…doesn’t that seem a bit much?

    Also - not fair to use the extremists as examples of what the cause is about. Every group has their own set of nutters who spew forth hatred on ‘behalf of the cause’. I’m sorry - but bringing a life into this world is not a black or white decision for many people. It isn’t for me and I am glad that I am able to use birth control (hi, for medical reasons) without getting sass back from my medical professionals or those around me because of it.

48. 

    Real Christian said,

    March 19, 2008 at 7:58 pm

    What I see from so many “christians” is they are turning the Church of God from a church of agape, a church of love, into a church of hate. I do not see a loving approach, I see quick anger. It’s not “testicular fortitude” that makes a Christian. It’s compassion and love. I see little of that, even from the clergy who should lead not just by word but by example. I don’t see words of love only harsh words. I see less of Christ and more of Innocent III. As a church I would have hoped to move beyond.

    No where in any Natural Law ethical treatise have I read, is there a demand to procreate. Nor does the Bible itself demand procreation. Indeed if one examines the concept of “it’s better to marry than burn” it would seem to be the opposite. The Old testament rings with “thou may be blessed with” not “thou must beget.” It is not until the 19th century and The Book of Mormon that one sees any demand for progeny. Maybe those who are so quick with judgment would fit in nicely there?

    A question to ask - what is a church? Is it a closed showcase for the proclaimed righteous? Or is it an open hospital for sinners and seekers of God? What are you - a modern Pharisee - or a Good Samaritan?

49. 

    Spenserian said,

    March 19, 2008 at 9:10 pm

    It’s my informed opinion that if the large amount of Catholics who currently contracept knew more of this type of information they would, in fact, switch to NFP.

    So you’re telling me that 97% of Catholics DON’T EVEN KNOW what their leader’s orders are regarding birth control?

    And you didn’t answer my question. If non-Catholic childfree people are evil incarnate for not following the Pope’s orders re: birth control, what about the 97% of Catholics who don’t follow the Pope’s orders re: birth control either? Are they evil? Yes or no.

50. 

    Kay said,

    March 19, 2008 at 11:25 pm

    I’ve been reading the comments here and also reading some of the childfree blogs. I’ve also checked out posts other places by some of the childfree proponents who are also commenting here. While I can understand childfree folks’ objection to being called “evil”, I do notice on childfree blogs a lot of profanity and ugly insults directed at parents and children, especially mothers. I’m pretty sure I’ve come across writing that impled, if not explicitly stated, that parents, especially mothers (”breeders” and children are “evil.” But if any parents comment at the blog to defend themselves, the response is nothing but flaming, and lots of yelling about “what are you doing on a childfree blog anyway?”

    The constant refrain at childfree blogs is “why can’t people just leave us alone and let us live our lives the way we want”? No one on this NFP blog has interfered with a single individual’s life choices. And reading the blog here is entirely voluntary. Before the childfree folks started flaming here, this blog was not nearly as well known. Now the message is getting out all over the place.

    I frequently see on childfree blogs the question why any parent or mother (usually coupled with some kind of ugly epithet) would want to read “their” blogs anyway? Well, why would childfree people who are happy and comfortable with their lifestyle want to read a Catholic NFP blog? Why not leave it alone?

    I also notice on childfree blogs that there seems to be a certain repetitious quality - it seems like a bunch of people who are supposedly enjoying all their free time from not having kids (which is their perfect right, if they care to - God gave everyone free will) are really just spending a bunch of time ruminating over how horrible it is that women have children and how horrible children are and coming up with ever more insulting and derogatory terms for people with children, and children themselves.

    I’ve concluded based on my review of the childfree web literature out there that in fact, the fundamentalist childfree movement, while it will demand respect for itself and its own members’ choices, does not advocate kind, or respectful dialogue when it comes to parents or others who value human life from conception to natural death. That’s fine - I never ran across a childfree blog before I saw this post, so the whole movement never really came to my attention. Now that I have discovered it, I am the worse for it, having now come to understand exactly how angry, disrespectful and even obscene much of the writing on those blogs can be.

    It does really cast doubt on the goodness of the “fruit” of that movement. Not that any member of the movement should care what I think - but if they want to obsess over how disgusting motherhood and children are in private on their own blogs, they should feel free to do so. But why troll around on Catholic pro-family websites and spread profanity even further? Why not just quit reading? I know I have gladly quit reading childfree blogs.

51. 

    strawberry muffin said,

    March 19, 2008 at 11:39 pm

    Fr. Sternberg: You totally missed my point. This hypothetical couple doesn’t need counseling, they need to not have children. That’s why they’re childfree. You can’t counsel somebody into liking something they don’t like. If a couple has no affinity for children, that’s why they shouldn’t have any. That was my point, father.

    Dan: the obvious answer is,“NO! You should WANT the child you were BLESSED WITH.”
    Translation: The obvious answer is: everybody should get mindlessly knocked up even if they know in their bones they never want to be parents, cross their fingers, and hope that they’ll magically get baby rabies the day the kid is born. Don’t think so. I have basically no affinity for children. Were I to have one, I would feel nothing but this huge weight of disappointment about how I just ruined my life and dashed all my dreams. I know myself. You don’t. Trust me, we’re all better off with me being childfree than adding another mouth that’ll just keep the criminal justice system busy.

    And finally, NFPWorks: Nowhere does it say that not having children is a sin. Just because the Vatican says it, doesn’t mean you have to listen. You’re free to ignore them just like you ignore all logical and rational thinking.

52. 

    BlueMondays said,

    March 20, 2008 at 1:08 am

    Gads, are you still prating on about how EVIL childfree people are?

53. 

    Chris W said,

    March 20, 2008 at 2:07 am

    NFP, I wasn’t going to post here, as I felt I no longer needed to justify my wife and I’s decision on the CF life. However, I have a big problem concerning one point of your discussion in all of this. I take this very personally, so I consulted my NIV on the subject.

    Reading through 1st Corinthians, chap. 6 and 7, It is said in there that sex is, in essence, a gift from God for a MARRIED man and woman to enjoy each other and their relationship. In no way is it sinful unless it is done outside of marriage. Don’t get me wrong; children are a great gift as well. God’s gifts are given and we can choose to accept them or not… He doesn’t penalize us for not accepting a gift. He DOES penalize us for not accepting his Son’s Salvation, as that is not a gift but a essential part of Christian life.

    I understand that you equate marital sex without children as having a sinful relationship. However, that is akin to saying that my wife and I are living in sin with our relationship, which is not true according to the Word. Most of the CF people don’t have a hatred for children. Some people simply don’t feel that children would fit in their lives… or they have other reasons as well. I do love children, but a child would not fit in our relationship as my wife has 0% patience for kids (I’m not exaggerating). Imagine her trying to raise a child with me.

    I would encourage you to do some more reading and prayer on this. I’ll be praying for you as well. Like I said, I originally wasn’t going to post at all; I felt that it wouldn’t matter. I simply don’t like the label that you’ve given my relationship. But… you probably already have your mind made up.

    Thanks for reading. Cheers!

54. 

    strawberry muffin said,

    March 20, 2008 at 4:19 am

    PS: I’m Catholic and I never listen to the Vatican.

55. 

    Louise said,

    March 20, 2008 at 6:50 am

    Hi, I came here via Mark Shea’s blog. Good work - keep it up! I like your post on the child-free movement. It is indeed evil.

56. 

    Louise said,

    March 20, 2008 at 6:53 am

    Ashley, I have no problem with married people remaining married even if they are unhappy. For one thing, if they bother to really work on it, that may change and secondly a miserable couple are only miserable themselves. Divorce makes *everyone else* miserable. Frankly I’m sick of unhappy people getting divorced and spreading their misery. And so are my non-Christian friends. It’s a natural law thing.

57. 

    Louise said,

    March 20, 2008 at 6:55 am

    Oh, and the not “getting divorced just ‘cos you’re unhappy” thing? It’s about promises, “for better or for worse.” And stuff like that.

58. 

    Lori said,

    March 20, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    You’re a very rude person. Insulting people is not going to make them think that you’re right.

59. 

    Holywatersalt said,

    March 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    Yes, we judge actions never words. I’d say CF folks are fundies as they march lockstep. I will say there is hope here though.Their conscience is present and being pricked.

60. 

    John Smith said,

    March 20, 2008 at 5:58 pm

    To: strawberry muffin,

    I’d like to set this position in light of what appears to be at the heart of this debate: Objective Truth

    “PS: I’m Catholic and I never listen to the Vatican.”

    While I find that many of the CF posts are in need of serious attention in terms of, really, hoping to better understand the position from which they begin reasoning, I believe that, even more, regardless of the post being either for or against NFP, the reality is that the greatest need for clarification is on the point of Natural Law as a basis for Objective Truth.

    What is Natural Law: According to St. Thomas in his Summa Theologica, the Natural Law is “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law” (I-II, Q. xciv).

    We, hopefully, will first of all agree that human beings are “rational creatures.” And so, as such, we are able to intelligently make sense of the known universe.

    Next, what of an “eternal law.” If this “eternal law” does exist, is it reflected through a “natural law,” that is, an exterior reflection of an interior reality? (Is what we “see” and experience with our senses the end of it all, or is there something - some Objective Reality - which we discover in becoming more familiar with what is “natural”?)

    Moreover, are there Objective Principles and is there an Objective Purpose to the existence of humanity? This, to me, appears as the crux behind so many of the comments posted on this blog. Simply put, if one serves an “Objective” Reality, NFP appears reasonable. If not, and all things are subject to any one person’s definition of “what is,” than, no, we need not be thought to serve something so “confining.”

    And so, I will propose (to hopefully further constructive dialogue), that if Objective Reality does exist within the context of which a set of principles (a Natural Law) does exist and that each human person, objectively, is given a simple purpose for being just like every other human person, than, the notion of living in accord with these principles ought to bring a human person to respect (and even reverence) the One from whom these realities come, and so, to live, as best as one is able, in accordance with this “Divine (Objective) Plan.”

    Is this a “theological” debate? Perhaps. However, I would like to inquire of those who so vehementaly oppose the idea of NFP, do you believe in a Divinity, an Objective Being, who is Eternal, Infinite, and unchanging, One whom gives us a universe where Objective Truth becomes a discernable reality through reason?

    That is, if you say you “believe” in God, do you, then also, believe in Objective Truth? And if you do believe in God, why not Objective Truth? This does not make sense. How can God, who is an Objective Reality (however you perceive that this Being exists) not offer to humanity, as rational creatures, a way to understand Ultimate Being through “nature” (being), that is, all that exists in the known material world? (That is, unless your idea of God is that of a cruel God, one whom is very malevolently attempting to fool humanity or whatever rational creatures have come into existence. But, simply, this cannot be God for God is Love and, if we are truly to believe in God, God cannot be anything but Love for to BE anything but LOVE is to not BE God - again, unless God is conceived in one’s human intelligence as something perverse and unthinkable, one in whom we cannot believe, for to believe in any other god but Love is to believe in something quite inhuman, and again, unthinkable, as the One God, if something other than Love, becomes not whom God is, but something else entirely).

    Please ask yourself, if you believe in “God” as an Objective Reality:

    “Is all that appears to exist, that which is intelligible to us as rational creatures, existent as a reflection of Divine Reality, or, do you believe it exists in an unintelligible chaos, inconsistent with any idea of Objective Truth?

    And finally, if you do believe in Objective Truth, does it guide the principles which give purpose and meaning to human existence, even insofar as serving the determination of how we understand the ideas of “marriage,” “family,” and “society”? Can these “principles” and this “purpose” determined by an Objective Reality, an Objective Truth, be “discovered” and lived out in a manner fitting to an “Original Design” for humankind, or, do you believe it be an arbitrarily chosen phenomenon based upon a subjective intelligence, based upon that which any one of us “decides” it to be, based upon an intelligence and a design independently determined by each one of us (though, of course, finding some common “laws” and “moral prescriptions”)? Ultimately, which “intelligence” (subjective or Objective) will bring a human person to the deepest levels of happiness, freedom, and fulfillment? (One’s own or that of an Objective Other?)

61. 

    Ashley said,

    March 20, 2008 at 6:55 pm

    Kay:

    Well, why would childfree people who are happy and comfortable with their lifestyle want to read a Catholic NFP blog

    There are these neat little things called google blog search and google alerts. When you type in childfree you are given a list of blogs that have recently written on the topic. If you get google alerts, you get one everytime there is a post made containing the word childfree. Childfreedom is very much an online community since most of us don’t know many childfree people in real life. We use these features to find more people like us. So everytime NFPworks posts one of these it comes into our inbox or shows up on a blog search. And when you see a blog asking if you’re evil you tend to take notice.

    Louise:

    That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. My parents divorce made me, my sister, and them 10 times happier. Who do you think convinced them to go ahead with it because it wouldn’t ruin their life? Me. I felt nothing but relief after they divorced and I loved them both. Life isn’t as black and white as you seem to think it is. Other people getting divorced may ruin your life. But it seems that people doing things you don’t want them to greatly affects you.

62. 

    Kay said,

    March 20, 2008 at 7:32 pm

    Ashley - I understand about running across a Catholic blog that is evaluating negatively the childfree lifestyle through a google alert, and checking it out. But why stay there and keep harping on it? The childfree blogs I read were explicit in their insistance that anyone who likes children or mothers should just stay away, and if anyone disagreed with the derogatory messages about mothers and children there, they should just expect to read it and live with it. Then they proceed to call parents and children evil, or worse, over and over again. I’ve read so much uglier things on childfree blogs than I have read on NFPWorks, even with the one post calling the childfree lifestyle “evil.” One childfree blog called NFPWorks a “hate site.” This is just ridiculous. There is plenty of hatred being voiced (usually with profanity directed at mothers and children) at childfree blogs, and no childfree blogger seems to feel at all constrained to show respect for the child-”full” lifestyle. Or to allow comments contradicting the predominant view that childfreedom is wonderful and that parents and children are horrible things (and I do mean “things” - there does not seem to be any sense of shared humanity with parents and children, which is evidenced by terms like “breeder” and “crotch-dropping” - de-humanizing terms). It seems to me that the childfree movement is fueled by a pervasive sense of perceived victimization and by keeping the conversation going over here, instead of moving it back to the childfree blogs where everyone already agrees with them, the childfree activists are just escalating their own anger.

    No one who follows Catholic Church teaching on marriage and sexuality and procreation is going to be convinced through the angry comments by childfree activists on this site that childfreedom is some kind of wonderful, peace-loving, respectful movement. Its representatives over here don’t demonstrate that.

    And I daresay no childfree activists will be convinced by any argument, explanation, apology or what-have-you to open their minds at all about the opposite lifestyle from their own.

    That’s why I don’t see the point of continuing to debate.

63. 

    Kay said,

    March 20, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    So, should those who wish to freely discuss the childfree lifestyle critically find some way to refer to it without actually using “childfree” so that it could be rationally discussed without triggering the google alerts and bringing in a bunch of people who just get angry but don’t want reasonable discussion? What’s the non-childfree counterpart to words like “nutmoo” and “sanctimoo” (some of the nicer terms used on childfree websites to refer to mothers)?

    By the way, for those who don’t know, here’s a link to a childfree “glossary”, The Lexicon of Spawn: http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Quarter/7404/

    Real respectful, huh?

    I don’t agree (and don’t believe NFP was trying to say) that childfree PEOPLE are “evil.” But again, I am convinced after delving a bit into the web lit on this lifestyle, that it is hardly a bastion of tolerance and respect, even though it demands those qualities for itself.

    I think it’s all just very sad and disappointing.

64. 

    Kay said,

    March 20, 2008 at 8:55 pm

    Sorry - this is my last post, but below is a link that seems characteristic of the childfree blog world - if you are offended by obscene language, I suggest you not read it. It is a childfree commentary on a mother who used IVF to become pregnant, and then gave birth to premature twins. If you read the whole exchange, you will see what the childfree activists posted - and then applauded - to the mother’s website. I found it with a google search on “nutmoo” so it’s obviously intended to be public.

    http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,22615,page=1

    I think that exchanges like this, if not actually “evil”, are at the very least instructive of the kind of rhetoric that is considered acceptable by childfree bloggers (note that one of the participants in that discussion has also commented here).

    I think that as long as exchanges like this are readily available via google, that the childfree community should not be surprised if some others raise their voices in opposition. Objecting to having a lifestyle called “evil” that promotes harrassing a woman who is blogging her experiences dealing with infertility and premature birth in such an obscene way is pretty hypocritical in and of itself.

    I want to believe that not all the folks who identify themselves as “childfree” go along with this sort of rhetoric. It would be nice to see some childfree voices raised in opposition to this kind of ugliness as well.

65. 

    Cycles said,

    March 20, 2008 at 9:40 pm

    So because you’ve seen a few ugly Child Free sites that means that it is perfectly okay for NFPworks to do the same? I’m inclined to dislike any side - for any argument - who bring forth their case in such ugly and childish manners. NFP doesn’t get a “get out of jail free” card just because there are people on the other side of the debate who are also rude.

66. 

    Richard Bell said,

    March 21, 2008 at 2:40 am

    I think what a lot of people have missed when villifying the article is that Child Free is not merely choosing not to have children. It is being against having to make any concessions for anyone else’s children.

    A Child Free person cannot be a proud aunt.

    A Child Free person considers Planned Parenthood to be a group of slackers who do go far enough.

    A Child Free person is offended by parental leave and subsidised daycare, because that means that their tax dollars are encouraging breeders. Do not get one talking about public schools.

    They really are in need of our prayers.

67. 

    Chris W said,

    March 21, 2008 at 5:13 am

    @ Kay:

    “I want to believe that not all the folks who identify themselves as “childfree” go along with this sort of rhetoric. It would be nice to see some childfree voices raised in opposition to this kind of ugliness as well.”

    Amen to that. Seriously. I’m as opposed to someone calling children evil as I am opposed to someone calling my married relationship evil (ie. sex without having kids). I myself love kids (or at least a strong liking), but a child wouldn’t fit in my wife an I’s relationship. There are quite a few factors involved in this and I won’t go into it here, though I explained a bit in my last comment. But I digress…

    Everyone has their views. They are entitled to them. But there’s no need to be hostile towards one another. Some comments on this blog were good, worthy debates, but I was shocked to hear NFP is getting death threat comments (I only hoped she was exaggerating). I don’t wish that on anyone.

    I love a good debate, nothing more. But I have to agree with many commenters here: this wasn’t much of an apology.

68. 

    BlueMondays said,

    March 21, 2008 at 5:15 am

    Um, Kay?

    In vitro fertilization treatments are considered anathema by the Catholic Church because they defeat the unitive purpose of sex. (To Catholics, sex must have procreative and unitive purpose to a couple, whereas to the childfree, the unitive purpose is all that matters, and the procreative purpose is entirely rejected. Just so you know.)

    However, in vitro is also largely considered anathema by the childfree because to us it makes about as much sense as spending a whole lot of money developing an expensive sprinkler system for use in the rain forest. (Gee, imagine an issue on which the childfree and the Catholic Church actually agree!)

    In short, don’t expect the NFP advocates on this board OR the childfree to support someone having IVF treatments. It’s really disingenuous to think otherwise.

69. 

    Ashley said,

    March 21, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Kay,

    People are here because NFPworks opens her blog to outside comments. The childfree boards do not. If she states she’d rather childfree people don’t comment they won’t. And it is obvious you have spent time on childfree boards and you keep harping on the fact that you can’t comment. So I don’t understand why it is so horrible that we comment here when it is clear you want to comment on those posts. Otherwise you wouldn’t have brought the point up so many times.

    You also keep saying how we are leaving such ragefilled comments on this blog. But when you post examples…they’re from other boards. The comments here are pretty tame. Most of them are well thought out discussions. Not to mention the vast majority of posts and blogs about the childfree lifestyle are positive. And many of the “hate-filled rants” are their response to things and situations they have recently experienced in their lives. I have the feeling that to you hate-filled means that they disagree with you. By the way, there is no such thing as a childfree activist since there is no such thing as a childfree movement. At least not in the way that requires activists.

    The childfree don’t need to be opened to any lifestyle different than are own. We are a very small minority. We see it plainly. We don’t take objection to lifestyles different than ours. We take objection when othe people’s lifestyle choices case them to develop a superior attitude towards all others. And you can pull out all of the mean posts you can and base your opinion off of those. The same way we could base our opinion of people who support NFP by posts like these and comments like yours. I could go on to find boards and comments (parents, quiverfull movement, NFP, religious sites, conservative sites, etc.) that are a lot worse and larger in numbers than anything you can find on childfree sites. Where do you think the anger on some boards comes from?

    We’re under no obligation to prvide a childfree spokesperson to be all fluffy and nice since we’re not the ones trying to introduce people to our lifestyle. We’re not out to convert. Yes, there are rant boards designed to let people blow off steam. And every segment has it’s extremes. But we’re not the ones out asking if people who practice NFP are evil.

    Oh, and stop pretending that NFPworks called us evil because she found some rants online. She called us evil because we made a choice that is different from hers. Trying to come up with reasons to justify it after the fact isn’t going to put this blog in a better light.

70. 

    Kay said,

    March 21, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    I just want to add that by pointing out the harrassment of the IVF mom by childfree activists, I was not in any way condoning IVF, which I agree (as a Catholic) is immoral. Catholic teaching is that children are a gift, but not a right. But if you read what the childfree activits wrote to this woman, and what they wrote about this woman, in the link above, regardless of how she may have become pregnant, you see plenty that would make folks wonder how peaceful, and respectful and tolerant and “live and let live” childfree folks (at least the ones who blog) are. What they demand for themselves from NFPWorks is not what they extend to others on their own public sites.

    That’s my only point. And I’m really done.

71. 

    Cycles said,

    March 21, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    Richard Bell - you are stereotyping the child-free idea. And you are doing it in such a way that it is warping what being child-free is about to make them out to be a bunch of monsters. What a bunch of loaded assumptions you have made about a group that you clearly don’t understand. Why bring more hate into this board?

72. 

    strawberry muffin said,

    March 21, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    Ashley, you get a round of applause.

    As for John Smith:
    Lucky for me I don’t have to bother untangling that mess you call an argument because you already lost all your points on three things:
    1.) nobody’s arguing the merits of natural family planning. This is about the childfree responding to this silly blog post that called us “evil” for no reason.
    2.) you can’t argue to a general audience using narrowly-construed religious principles. A valid argument before a general audience must be based on premises that are accepted as fact by society as a whole.
    3.) you clearly do not know what “objective” means.

    Not everybody here is Christian, or even religious. Basing an “argument” on what St. Thomas wrote doesn’t mean jack to anybody of a different faith than you. It doesn’t hold water because it’s just the religious musings of another person. It doesn’t even hold water with all Christians because some denominations don’t put much weight in saints or ignore them altogether. Try making your point without basing everything on your personal religious beliefs (and if you can’t, well, that says something about the validity of your argument, doesn’t it?)

    And please buy a dictionary so you can look up “objective.” Objective (with or without a capital “O” means that if you were to ask a bunch of diverse people a question about something, like what color is grass, you’d get pretty much the same answer from everybody. God cannot possibly be an “Objective” reality because we could debate til the end of time about the existence of God. God is a subjective reality because He is only a reality to those who believe He exists. If He were an objective reality, His existence might be scientifically provable or tangibly observable. Objective reality means we could prove He exists without using religion. Since we can’t, God is a subjective reality who is real to those who believe in Him and not to those who don’t.

73. 

    BlueMondays said,

    March 21, 2008 at 9:22 pm

    I think what a lot of people have missed when villifying the article is that Child Free is not merely choosing not to have children. It is being against having to make any concessions for anyone else’s children.

    And you can say this with authority, because you are qualified to represent the views of every single member of a large and diverse group of people, none of whom you know personally.

    A Child Free person cannot be a proud aunt.

    Sez who? We certainly can be — especially if a niece or nephew really accomplishes something.

    A Child Free person considers Planned Parenthood to be a group of slackers who do go far enough.

    There you’re just flat wrong. I contribute to Planned Parenthood every year. CF people are among the most ardent SUPPORTERS of Planned Parenthood because a whole lot of us actually use their services.

    A Child Free person is offended by parental leave and subsidised daycare, because that means that their tax dollars are encouraging breeders.

    Many (not all) CF people resent having to pay for parental leave and subsidized daycare because WE aren’t the ones who chose to have kids. It doesn’t benefit us one iota, AND, it’s really expensive. If I don’t get input as to whether or not my co-worker stays on the Pill, why do I have to pay for her childcare? My master’s degree and I will not work for any company that offers financial perks to parents and does not offer equivalent perks to unchilded employees.

    Do not get one talking about public schools.

    Flat wrong again. Have I mentioned yet that I MYSELF am a teacher? Or that I myself was educated by the public school system?

    Honestly, where do you get off making all these unfounded and negative sweeping generalizations about CF people? If I did the same about Catholics, I can’t imagine the hue and cry of “Religious persecution!” that would ensue!

74. 

    BlueMondays said,

    March 21, 2008 at 9:34 pm

    It would be nice to see some childfree voices raised in opposition to this kind of ugliness as well.

    Expecting CF people to sympathize with the infertile is totally unrealistic. A CF person’s fondest wish is to BE naturally infertile. If I’d discovered that my tubal was unnecessary because I was naturally infertile, I’d have been delighted. I’ll be sympathetic to someone’s struggles with infertility on the day one of those gals sympathizes with my struggle to find a doctor to sterilize me. Think that’ll ever happen?

    Expecting a CF person to defend fertility treatments in principle (or volunteer to help pay for them through insurance) is kind of like expecting a gay man to support a straight woman’s right to get breast implants. Or expecting a lesbian to support the use of Viagra.

    It’s an irrelevant issue at best and pure vanity at worst.

75. 

    Chris W said,

    March 21, 2008 at 11:20 pm

    @ Richard Bell

    Not all of us are like that. For some of us, “childfree” simply means choosing not to have kids. Not hating children or hating being around them. Just because I like kids doesn’t mean I feel I should have one. Granted, I can’t speak for everyone. So I’ll shut up for now, lest I perchance open up more cans of worms.

76. 

    Rose said,

    March 22, 2008 at 12:59 am

    No one who follows Catholic Church teaching on marriage and sexuality and procreation is going to be convinced through the angry comments by childfree activists on this site that childfreedom is some kind of wonderful, peace-loving, respectful movement.

    There is no such thing as a childfree “activist,” ma’am. We’re not a political movement, just a group of people talking about common interests on the Internet. And I wasn’t aware that I HAD to convince Catholics that I or any of my CF friends were a “wonderful, peace-loving, respectful” movement. You’ve already decided that we’re “evil,” so it ain’t like you’re looking too “wonderful, peace-loving, or respectful” from where I’m sitting, either.

    You want to convert US, ma’am. We don’t care what you do, so long as it doesn’t affect us.

    And I daresay no childfree activists will be convinced by any argument, explanation, apology or what-have-you to open their minds at all about the opposite lifestyle from their own.

    That’s just it — YOU want to convert US. I’m not “close-minded” or “evil” if I don’t embrace your religion.

77. 

    Stephen M. Tefft said,

    March 25, 2008 at 4:12 pm

    Friends,

    I’ve been thinking a lot about this blog, its message and the comments posted. I’m not sure I want to stir up the hornets nest again but feel that I have to say something. I think, when the term “childfree” is used it brings up certain connotations that, perhaps, you may not realize. Generally when anything is termed “______free” it denotes that whatever you are free of is a bad thing. There’s caffeine-free, fat-free, commercial-free, etc. Thus, the term “childfree” seems to be saying that children are bad, whether you mean that or not. We don’t celebrate being free of something good.

    Just a thought.

78. 

    Rose said,

    March 25, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    Stephen M. Tefft, you have missed the point entirely.

    Society likes to call all couples who don’t have children “childless,” i.e. LESS something that was wanted. Infertile people and couples who want kids in the future are childLESS.

    ChildFREE couples are free of something that was NOT wanted — they do not feel that their lives are LESS in any way. That doesn’t necessarily pass judgment on the thing from which they are free. Just because I buy sugarfree sweetener doesn’t mean I HATE sugar and everyone who produces or consumes it. Just because I buy fat-free coffee creamer doesn’t mean I HATE people who like milk and the dairy industry. Just because I prefer to watch commercial-free DVDs doesn’t mean that I HATE all advertising executives and their products and want them all to die.

    If you see the term childfree as meaning “children are BAD,” you need to consider exactly why it makes you so defensive. I am continually amazed to hear that some parents’ egos are so fragile that they construe anyone who decides not to have children as ATTACKING them. Can’t parents just be more secure in their own decision to have kids?

79. 

    nfpworks said,

    March 25, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    Rose, I think Stephen gets the point *exactly*, and is making the point that the word “childfree” is demeaning to the human dignity of 1)children and 2)People who have them. Yes, Stephen and many others see the term childfree as “children are bad.” Perhaps that’s not your personal sentiment, but a great number of CFers give this impression by their language and attitudes. Reference any number of fora referring to children and parents in extremely demeaning and dehumanizing ways.

80. 

    Lauren said,

    March 25, 2008 at 7:14 pm

    NFPworks - I think both you AND Stephan have missed the point. I mean Rose just explained to you the thought behind the term ‘childfree’ and I happen to think that what she says, seeing as how she considers herself childfree, holds more weight then what you (a person who does not consider themselves to be childfree) think.

    Do you get that? You’re making assumptions despite many, many posters here telling you that your assumptions are WRONG. You’re applying a whole world of negativity where there isn’t really any. You don’t like the childfree movement so everyone in it is exactly the same? Shall I take all of the worst Catholic stereotypes that I can think of and apply them to you then? I bet you wouldn’t care for that.

    Stop thinking in stereotypes, NFP. Look at what these people are saying. Slow down, take a deep breath and try reading the sane arguments people are making for the childfree. Disregard the ugly - because the ugliness that exists in that particular movement doesn’t characterize it. Get it now?

81. 

    Stephen M. Tefft said,

    March 25, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    Rose and Lauren,

    I was simply making the point that words and terms have connotations beyond their literal meaning. I don’t believe that in my post I in any way denigrated you or your position. If I did, it was entirely unintended and I apologize. In your post, Rose, you mention some of the connotations of the word “less.” So, on some level you understand what I mean. To me, the word less in these instances tend to denote “without.” Childless=without children. It has nothing to do with wanting or not wanting. But, as I said before, to be FREE of something tends to denote that what you are free of is a bad thing.

    I am not talking about you personally. All I know about you is what you’ve written here. I am simply talking about the terms and how they can be percieved. You act as if I am personally attacking you. I didn’t say anything about you. But you have made assumptions as to what I mean that go far beyond what I said. Where have I said that you hate anything? Where have I said anything about what you think and feel?

    But I do have a question for you: why do you not want children? You may have written about it before and I missed it, if so I applogize for making you repeat yourself. Simply point me to the post number and I’ll go there.

    I’d also like to ask why you think I’m being defensive?

    God bless.

82. 

    Rose said,

    March 27, 2008 at 6:06 am

    In your post, Rose, you mention some of the connotations of the word “less.” So, on some level you understand what I mean.

    I understand what you mean on more than “some level” — this is a minor semantic question, not rocket science. However, even if I understand your point, I still disagree with it.

    To me, the word less in these instances tend to denote “without.” Childless=without children. It has nothing to do with wanting or not wanting.

    To a childFREE person, it has everything to do with wanting/not wanting. A childLESS person doesn’t have kids but wants them. A childFREE person doesn’t have kids and doesn’t want them ever. The social cue indicated in childFREE means that the new person I’m talking to doesn’t have to annoy me with, “Oh you poor thing, have you been to the fertility doctor?” or whatever — savvy new acquaintances will recognize that I don’t have offspring by CHOICE. That way, they know not to even bother me about kids.

    But, as I said before, to be FREE of something tends to denote that what you are free of is a bad thing.

    To be FREE of something indicates that I am free of something I, as in I personally, do not want. It conveys no value judgment, only that I personally do not want it. I’m also petfree, smokefree, and mortgagefree, if you want to split hairs.

    But what it boils down to is I prefer to call myself childFREE, not childLESS, and ultimately, that’s all that matters. To call me childLESS is to offend me. I understand there isn’t much difference between calling a black person a “person of color” or a “colored person” either, but the former is still polite and the latter is still offensive, regardless of whether or not anyone outside their community gets it. I’ll make you a deal: you call me childFREE, and I’ll refer to you as a Catholic parent and not a child-burdened Papist. Okay? Can we both extend that courtesy?

    But I do have a question for you: why do you not want children?

    I have a lot of reasons, which you would be familiar with if you were a sympathetic personal friend. Long story short is:

    a) I don’t want any,
    b) my husband doesn’t want any,
    c) I’m the eldest daughter of a very big family and am very much burnt out on childcare,
    d) my husband is also from a very large family and is burnt out on childcare, and
    e) I am probably a carrier for multiple debilitating genetic conditions.

    However, the real question for me is not “Why don’t I want children?”

    It’s “Why have children?”

    I can’t think of a single reason TO have children. There is nothing in either me or my husband that wants a child. Perhaps God in his infinite wisdom gave me the will to be a loving wife, daughter, sister, and friend, but left out the maternal instinct, because I can’t find a scrap of it anywhere.

    And I’ll never be convinced that that makes me EVIL.

83. 

    Sanne said,

    March 27, 2008 at 11:25 am

    The use of two different terms: childLESS and childFREE, is not just because of childfree people who don’t want people to think they want children. It is also out of courtecy to the childless! Imagine this: you and your partner have been trying for a baby for years. You’ve tried about every trick in the book, but alas, nothing happens and the doctors can’t help you. You now have to face facts and accept that a biological child is not an option. For some people, this is horrible and very painfull. Imagine someone walking up to them and once they hear the couple is childless, say something like “why don’t you want children?”. That can hurt their feelings, because they DO want children. At the same time, a childfree person is annoyed, because childless implies that they want children, but can’t have them. They don’t want children and are tired of explaining that, no, they don’t need your aunts special fertility herbs or Dr. Productio’s adress because apparently, he has the ‘magic touch’.

84. 

    Lauren said,

    March 27, 2008 at 7:41 pm

    Rose and Sanne summed up everything very well. Stephen, thank you for approaching this politely. You have asked a good question - one that is looking to learn and not to judge so far as I can tell. I’ll just point you in the direction of Rose’s and Sanne’s comments and say “Yeah, what they said” in regards to the child-less vs child-free debate. And just for the record - you haven’t made brash judgments on those of us who come here and stand up for those who don’t want to have children. It was NFPworks who was doing that, so it was really aimed towards her. Sorry if I wasn’t clear on that.

    Personally I don’t want children because:

    1.) I have medical reasons. Ones that would endanger both myself and the potential unborn child. I don’t take getting pregnant lightly and I do feel that this NFP approach does take getting pregnant lightly. There is barely any planning involved - at least not enough planning for someone like myself with my medical background.
    2.) My husband and I got married not but a few months ago and are simply not ready to even consider children. At this point we are on the fence about it. I don’t feel motherhood calling and he doesn’t feel fatherhood calling. Why rush into it? We’re not there yet mentally or financially.
    3.) I have a brother eight years my junior…I have no desire to hop back into any kind parental role right now. I’ve done the kid thing.

    I think those are good reasons. But according to this blog I am ‘evil’. Or my decision is evil - how ever you want to approach it. That is what annoys me. Everyone here who considers themselves childfree have brought good defenses to the table and yet NFPworks still calls them names. NFPworks still gets onto her soapbox and makes these outrageous assumptions based on crap rumors she claims she found on the internet.

85. 

    nfpworks said,

    March 27, 2008 at 8:20 pm

    Lauren, see previous explanations regarding my use of the word evil. I do not judge you or the state of your soul personally. I have apologized for the misunderstanding of my words, and the imprudent and unkind words I used to explanation.

    As to “crap rumors”? Well, if someone’s (it turns out a *whole lot* of someone’s) actual on the record words are “rumors,” then yes–I base my opinions on “rumors.” Or so you may have heard, on the “rumor mill” which is my blog.

86. 

    Lauren said,

    March 28, 2008 at 3:40 am

    They are still rumors because they don’t represent the whole of what it means to choose to be childfree. You are focusing on the bad instead of what the rational people are saying - how would you feel if people did that for your religion and/or personal beliefs? So, yes, I do feel that these are rumors because they are one side to a multifaceted concept - it by no means represents the ‘truth’ of what childfree is.

87. 

    Rose said,

    March 29, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    Everyone here who considers themselves childfree have brought good defenses to the table and yet NFPworks still calls them names.

    Exactly — no defense any one of us offers will ever be enough, will it?

    Plus I don’t see why the CF should be required to defend their decisions to anyone, let alone some stranger on the Internet. I don’t have a clue why some random stranger on the Internet would imagine why she gets a vote as to my reproductive decisions, regardless of her religious affiliation or what family planning method she advocates. My family and in-laws don’t even get a vote, because they aren’t the ones who’ll have to risk their health and their life’s happiness giving birth to an unwanted child. Why do you think you have any influence, if they don’t?

    Like Lauren, I don’t see why all childfree people should be taken to task for what individual people are saying on the Internet. I could just as easily take all Christians to task for those ridiculous Baptist extremists who picket soldiers’ funerals with anti-gay slogans. I mean, you all believe in God and Jesus, right? Doesn’t that mean that you’re all the same?

88.