Interesting "New Republic" Article on the Topic of Waiting to Start a Family

[JumpyTheFrog]

Do you really not see a difference between not having enough to eat versus having enough to eat? That's such a fundamental necessity that I can't get around it.

 

I don't understand it either. Despite the materialism of our culture, there is no way that it is as sad as a country where such huge numbers of children in orphanges have their potential almost completely wasted because there wasn't enough food, clothes, education, playing, or interaction with adults.

[JumpyTheFrog]

This quote is a sweeping generalization that does nothing more than suggest taking options away from women under the guise of making us more "free". Blech.

 

Freedom = Having options. Having the option to quit, start your own business, save up and then quit and stay home, change jobs, change industries...those options = freedom.

 

I just finished reading "Nickle and Dimed." The working poor in that book had no options, no chance for improvement, no opportunity for advancement. They were trapped. They had little freedom because they had no options.

 

We consider our country free because we can choose our own path. Neither our parents nor the government dictate our careers to us. The countries without this freedom are places where your career is determined by your caste or some government official.

 

We are free because we can speak our mind, without worried about being arrested for treason when we make fun of Congress. People without that option are not free.

 

We are free because we can move to new cities or states without needing anyone's permission. People in the ghettos and camps of WWII didn't have that choice and weren't free.

 

In all these cases, freedom means having options. Hence, while a particular job may be awful, even seeming like virtual slavery at times (migrant worker conditions, perhaps?) having the ability and hence option to leave is freedom. Heather is right, her training and career experience give her freedom because they give her options. If her husband suddenly changed personalities and became abusive, she could leave him. Women without any training and no way to support themselves don't have as many options and hence are less free.

[Joanne]

Only a tiny fraction of 20somethings are pursuing PhD's and then a series of post-doc's. Sure, if one chooses that path, it will necessarily mean delaying childbearing (though it doesn't have to mean delaying serious courtship & marriage). But that situation is very much the minority.

 

Most of the women I know who are struggling with fertility issues now in their mid-30's could absolutely have chosen to settle down in their 20's. Most were finished with their education by 25 or 26. They could've stopped the partying earlier but chose not to.

 

You make *leaps* in this post and your OP. Not marrying does not equal "partying".

 

Not marrying does not equal "extended adolescence."

 

I just don't buy into the need for traditional marry and have kids to define maturity.

[annandatje]

The US birth rate is the lowest ever recorded. Meaning births per 1000 women not total number born per year. It has fallen for US born women and even more so for immigrants.

 

http://www.pewsocial...ong-immigrants/

 

I understand statistics. The "concern" was explained farther back in the thread.

[annandatje]

You make *leaps* in this post and your OP. Not marrying does not equal "partying".

 

Not marrying does not equal "extended adolescence."

 

I just don't buy into the need for traditional marry and have kids to define maturity.

 

Recognizing that one does not desire a family for whatever reasons and taking steps to avoid that, such as permanent sterilization, is an application of maturity.

[Jennifer3141]

It's so comforting to come here and see such a wide span of beliefs call out the ignorance.

[Wheres Toto]

Use of contraception destroys the love?? That is an extremely narrow view that I'm sure millions of couples who use birth control would be surprised to find there is no love in their marriage because they used birth control.

 

Nor does it indicate a lack of self-control.

 

Not only prostitutes use birth control.

 

I'm kind of dumbfounded at the moment and may answer more later.

[Melissa in Australia]

Use of contraception destroys the love?? That is an extremely narrow view that I'm sure millions of couples who use birth control would be surprised to find there is no love in their marriage because they used birth control.

 

Nor does it indicate a lack of self-control.

 

Not only prostitutes use birth control.

 

I'm kind of dumbfounded at the moment and may answer more later.

 

I am dumbfounded as well.

 

I am even flabbergasted that someone would have such a extremely narrow view of love, life and how other families function.

[Melissa in Australia]

n/m

[Joanne]

Mother Theresa was simply restating Catholic teaching. The reasoning is as follows:

 

The natural outcome of sex is children. Sex is both unitive and procreative, but the possibility of a child being a product of the union is always there. It is good to be having sex for union with your spouse, but when the sexual act is artificially cut off from procreation the two meanings of sex (unitive and procreative) are torn apart and one cannot be fully united with one's partner because the basic message becomes: "I want to unite with you, but..." That makes one's love conditional.

 

 

Perhaps not. However, practicing periodic abstinence when one has a serious reason to avoid pregnancy most definitely encourages self-control and delaying gratification in a way that being able to engage in the sexual act without "consequences" does not.

 

 

This was never implied in any way. My point was that it is a lot easier for people in the West to say, "Look at the problem of prostitution! All those women need birth control!" than to work towards eliminating prostitution.

 

 

You are stating as *fact* ideas that are religiously inspired. Your premise is flawed. You operate with a premise you consider *absolute*, but it's not.

 

I'd have more respect for your perspective if you'd claim it as opinion, and move forward conversationally with that instead of arguing opinion from the point of authority.

[Audrey]

 

You read way more into what I wrote than what I was saying.

 

 

No she didn't. You simply fail to see the inherent errancy of your own argument and refuse to accept that those disagreeing with you do see it.

[Joanne]

I just finished reading "Nickle and Dimed." The working poor in that book had no options, no chance for improvement, no opportunity for advancement. They were trapped. They had little freedom because they had no options.

 

 

 

I have been recommending this book for a couple of years. I think it should be required reading for anyone before commentary on food stamps, welfare, healthcare, etc.

[VeganCupcake]

one cannot be fully united with one's partner because the basic message becomes: "I want to unite with you, but..."

 

If I finish that sentence with ". . . but we as a couple do not have the emotional, mental, physical, or financial resources to care for a child right now" doesn't seem like it really divides a couple. It seems like they are united in recognition of their circumstances.

 

But that is just my opinion.

[Joanne]

If I finish that sentence with ". . . but we as a couple do not have the emotional, mental, physical, or financial resources to care for a child right now" doesn't seem like it really divides a couple. It seems like they are united in recognition of their circumstances.

 

But that is just my opinion.

 

I've moved to the total dark side: I believe in sex for its own sake. Nothing more; nothing less.

 

If you want to tie it to love and define a moral code around it, fine.

 

But if not? Awesome, also.

[I.Dup.]

I have not read every post in detail, but from what I can see, LtlMs is talking about is what many faiths teach. Does that come as a surprise? :confused1: This is where the world view thing comes in. We just will never see eye to eye on things like this if we don't share the same world view or the same faith. The contraception we know today that is so widespread and used by just about everybody is such a modern thing. Of course there have always been contraceptive methods but nothing like what is available today. I respect the fact that many of you think that is a wonderful thing that could cure just about all of humanity's evils, but from what I understand, those of us who do not see modern contraception as some heavenly miracle are just pointing out there can be drawbacks. We could debate that until kingdom come, but we here on this thread certainly aren't the first ones to invent the idea that contraception can have negative consequences. If you are interested in more of what we believe those to be, read the Catechism or do some study on the ancient Church. If you don't believe that, great for you. (also, the pill is a major carcinogen, but everyone should know that by now...)

 

Anyway, peace and good will to all.

[I.Dup.]

Also, I have yet to see LtlMrs post some of the offensive others have posted, things like repeatedly calling someone else ignorant and having to hold themselves back from saying nasty things. :confused1: She has been articulate and clear in her responses, answering the questions and accusations that come to her without attacking anyone else. Of course many may not agree with her POV and that's okay. But I don't think she deserves to be crucified for it.

[Free]

Joanne, if I have a premise, it is not that the Catholic Church is right (although I believe that), but that human relationships are grounded in human nature and that we can, using reason, make moral judgements about human sexuality. You can argue with me about human nature (or even question, like Sartre, whether there is a human nature), but it is disingenuous to claim that what I say is simply "religiously inspired."

...

That's not to say that well reasoned people haven't argued with these issues on a philosophical basis but it is unfair to say that Catholics believe simply because they believe. When philosophers like Kant and Nietzsche attacked Christianity they didn't say of Christian philosophers for example, "Your ideas are religiously inspired hence your premise is flawed." They actually engaged the reasoning. To be sure they came to differing conclusions but they didn't simply tell the Christian philosophers, "Well, you're Christian so therefore this is just your opinion based on religion."

 

 

I have read all your recent posts and I do not know what to make of them. I do not find any cogent reasonable argument or any logical stance in them. You have quoted Solzhenitsyn extensively as if his criticism of western materialism is in any way relevant to a discussion on family size. You seem to equate birth control with some form of evil and then seem to go on to say that birth control is the reason for Russia's problems. What?!? :confused1:

 

Maybe I do not understand. Maybe I am too "utilitarian" in my views that I cannot understand your "subtle" philosophical musings.

 

Here is what I do take from your posts though. You seem to think the West is under some moral decline and the root cause for this moral depravity is birth control - more accurately, the sexual freedom that birth control methods grant women. So ultimately it seems you equate sexual purity with morality.

 

I on the other hand do not see moral decline. I see greater freedom where there once would have been suppression - not just sexual freedom, but also freedom of creative expression which to me is more important. I see greater equality, where there once would have been oppression. I see falling crime rates and greater safety for women, children and minorities in place of wanton murders, theft and rape. I see greater justice and compassion overall than ever before. So no, I do not see moral decline, I see a moral advancement.

 

I am not a Christian, but I have been given to believe that Christians hold to compassion as the greatest virtue. If so, then I do not see what Christians would have to decry about the current state of the western world.

 

Now regarding materialism - yes that does worry me. The rate of consumption in the Western world as well as the growing rates of consumption in India and China worry me. So does the state of the environment, the ever shrinking forests, the growing power and water shortages, they all worry me. I am all for reducing consumption and for extending the idea of compassion not just to our fellow humans but to the earth itself. But my concerns, as well as of very many others, come not from some philosophical aversion to materialism, but from the utilitarian view of addressing the very real problems that the world is facing.

 

And even though I do feel despair at times, I also feel very optimistic and I place my faith in the ability of humans to innovate, invent and solve problems.

[Free]

I respect the fact that many of you think that is a wonderful thing that could cure just about all of humanity's evils, but from what I understand, those of us who do not see modern contraception as some heavenly miracle are just pointing out there can be drawbacks.

 

All too often, the solution to poverty, abuse, etc seems to be birth control...

 

Again, What?!? :confused1: :blink:

[Halftime Hope]

Is it just me, or are the people who normally bleat "don't judge!" around here the biggest judgers?

 

Signed,

A 20-something who is NOT a turd-chasing idiot, thankyou very much.

 

Honey, she wasn't talking about you or about the responsible folks she knows IRL, just about the large number of young ones she sees that are irresponsible.

 

I see the same thing in my own household for goodness sake.

 

It isn't a judgment of all folks in that age range. The only reason we don't see that same split in older folks is that most of them have either had some sense knocked into them by life and have come around.

[justamouse]

Oh give me a break. I am MORE subservient because I have a career? Hardly. Because I have an extensive education and a professional career I have OPTIONS. I don't have to be subservient to ANYONE. If my boss is being a jerk, I will quit and get a new job. If my dh is mistreating me, I can leave him and be able to support myself and my kids. I have choices.

 

A boss doesn't automatically equal angry tyrant-dictator. I should know. I am a boss. And employees don't automatically become slaves crouching in fear of the boss. This quote is a sweeping generalization that does nothing more than suggest taking options away from women under the guise of making us more "free". Blech.

 

 

Because you ARE the boss.

 

But, even with men, they are working longer, harder hours because in this economy they can't get up and leave their job and find another. So they sacrifice and sacrifice, do more work for less money and STILL worry about keeping their jobs. THat is not freedom. They suffer stress and anxiety and their families suffer their extended absence.

 

When you have a family, your only responsibility to this world is NOT your job, yet that is how many bosses now treat their workers. How many men and women fear losing their jobs because of the turmoil it would throw their family into? That is not freedom. That is paid slavery.

 

 

I repeat again, Russians have had access to birth control almost continually since the 1920s (I think longer than any other nation). Abortion is birth control in that it controls birth. Preventing conception is not the only way to control the outcome of not wanting to give birth (a broader definition of birth control is limiting the number of children born).

 

There are other choices for birth control in Russia. But, unlike in America or Western Europe abortions have been and are funded by the government for almost any reason (last year the law changed to not allow state funded abortions past week 12 - before that it was up to week 22). An abortion that is not for medical, economic, emotional or family reasons (such as having enough children in the family) is not covered by government healthcare but is still incredibly cheap.

 

Having access to birth control has done NOTHING to help solve the underlying problems. The same sorts of virtues of self-control that allow a person to abstain from sex until marriage, use NFP properly within marriage, etc are the sort of virtues that would help solve the underlying problems prevalent in Russian society today. Birth control is not even a good band aid.

 

I'm going to quote Solzhenitsyn again; here he is talking about the fact that because the West has so many freedoms that are bound only by the "letter of the law," the result has been that men have no motivation to exercise self-control beyond the letter of the law.

 

 

 

The same principle can be applied with birth control. When artificial forms of birth control are used, there is no motivation to self-restraint. Rather than focusing on how to help the women in the unfortunate position of prostituting themselves and how to inspire men to not engage in such behavior contrary to human dignity, we'll give those women a magic pill and tell them that now they have "freedom." But, of course, all this is not politically correct because amongst some feminists, prostitution is a valid "choice" a woman can make in how to use her body to earn a living.

 

 

 

The studies coming out of Russia on how exactly the birth control and on demand abortion is NOT helping them should be a clarion call to this country, because we are swiftly following suit. It is *scary* to see how their solutions are aggravating the problem, not solving it.

 

You know, the funny part about this conversation is that if we were Orthodox Jews, and we abstained for two weeks out of religions obligation and no one would be calling our views backwards, ignorant... Yet they are basically the same.

 

Know this, the Catholic church does NOT teach that we should procreate like bunnies, popping kids out every year. IT DOES teach that having children is a serious moral responsibility, and that procreation shouldn't be taken lightly--which *exactly* what contraception does, it takes it lightly. Don't worry, just have sex, you can contracept or you can just have an abortion. To be OPEN to life is to understand the extreme responsibility of the act. The paradox that modern thought misses is that it becomes more meaningful.

 

If anything the church's teaching gives MORE gravitas to the call of being parent. To social justice. To human dignity and work.

 

Dot, the RCC does not in any way teach that people who chose not to have kids or can't have kids shouldn't get married. AT ALL. IT DOES teach that sexual union between spouses is for the unity and love of the marriage. It celebrates love and the fruit (if any) of that union. It also calls us to be *extremely* responsible.

[elegantlion]

I've moved to the total dark side: I believe in sex for its own sake. Nothing more; nothing less. If you want to tie it to love and define a moral code around it, fine. But if not? Awesome, also.

 

My grandmother had the mindset that sex was the wife's duty and it was used to procreate, not for enjoyment or intimacy, and you would partake begrudgingly My mother, her daughter, taught me differently(she's such a rebel!). As I've been thinking back over our conversations, she reminded me that sex begats babies, and if you weren't ready make sure you used birth control. She also taught and modeled that sex was good in and of itself, that procreation is not the only reason for sex. :coolgleamA:

[Free]

ltlmrs, Thank you for what has been an interesting and at times frustrating discussion. Clearly we hold opposite moral standpoints that cannot be reconciled, at least in some matters, if not all.

 

So, compassion that tries to do good by doing evil is ultimately disordered.

I am hard put to think of a single theocratic regime past or present that achieved the ideals of justice and compassion for all citizens comparable to today's secular governments. I think this alone should be enough to inform one's views on religion and morality.

[justamouse]

My grandmother had the mindset that sex was the wife's duty and it was used to procreate, not for enjoyment or intimacy, and you would partake begrudgingly My mother, her daughter, taught me differently(she's such a rebel!). As I've been thinking back over our conversations, she reminded me that sex begats babies, and if you weren't ready make sure you used birth control. She also taught and modeled that sex was good in and of itself, that procreation is not the only reason for sex. :coolgleamA:

 

NO WHERE in this conversation has anyone said differently.

[Joanne]

3. My basic argument throughout, however, has been that birth control is evil (which can be deduced from the nature of sexual relations, which can be deduced from human nature, which exists and is knowable) and that it does not solve the problems that people claim it will solve.

 

4. I never said that birth control is the cause of Russia's problems. I said that not only does it not solve Russia's problems; it potentially adds to them because people are trying to fix one evil with another evil.

 

5. Christianity teaches that the highest good is to Love God. Everything else is derived from that. So, compassion that tries to do good by doing evil is ultimately disordered.

 

Good night, folks!

 

Again, please own the reality that you are discussing as if your perspective were objective truth - but it's not. It is highly subjective, theology inspired interpretation.

 

 

The content of which I believe, just as strongly as you embrace your opinion, to be harmful. Evil, even, in that it subjugates humans (especially women).

[justamouse]

Again, please own the reality that you are discussing as if your perspective were objective truth - but it's not. It is highly subjective, theology inspired interpretation.

 

 

The content of which I believe, just as strongly as you embrace your opinion, to be harmful. Evil, even, in that it subjugates humans (especially women).

 

 

So, if you believe our opinion to be harmful and subjugating women, what do you think of the outcome of your philosophy so far in Russia and the US?

[Joanne]

 

 

So, if you believe our opinion to be harmful and subjugating women, what do you think of the outcome of your philosophy so far in Russia and the US?

 

It's not a valid question.

 

It's not valid because first, you don't know what "my philospophy" is.

 

It's not valid because, second, the assumptions and assertions regarding Russia in this thread are not accurate. For example, the continuous posturing of abortion as birth control is flawed.

 

And, third, the US does not embrace my philosophy - nor does it now or has it ever embraced that being offered in the predominent content of this thread.

[Joanne]

I repeat my basic argument:

 

There is such a thing as human nature. Sexuality is fundamental to human nature. Sexuality and procreation are inextricably intertwined, and hence you do violence to human nature by artificically severing that connection.

 

 

 

This hosts at least one, possibly more, logical fallacies.

[merry gardens]

Thanks for posting this. Interesting.