Something I don't understand about criticism of big families

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:54 Umm, not that poster, but birth control is man made, not a natural occurence.

So are pumpkin spice lattes and computers. And I happily drink them and use them. Not sure why birth control would be any different.

BC is a great invention. People should be able to decide when they want kids, and when they don't.

Agreed. Seems like folks want to dictate when people should use them (to stop having so many children).

So long as they can support the kids which many, many can't. Shouldn't just be a free-for-all. Responsibility has to play a role and sadly it doesn't always.

You're making broad statements without support. Can you prove what you've just claimed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No different from the dynamics today where some parents (who are 40+ when they give birth) might not even live to see their grandkids or only do so for a short length of time. (This is barring illnesses, etc that can claim a parent at any age).

uh
not really

If I were a breeder who married in my 20s, I just might mirror the lifestyle of the Duggar mom - competing with my DIL as we go through our pregnancies together.

As a 40-something with two small children, while I may not live long to see my own grandchildren, I sure as hell can't compete with my son's future wife.

apples and oranges

Your explanation reveals you as a very selfish person. Are you one of those women who gets upset if your sister/friend/SIL/aunt/cat gets pregnant when you get pregnant? You want the spotlight on you, is that it? Ugh....you're the worst type of pregnant woman. If the choice is between living to see my grandchildren and "competing" to be the only pregnant one in the family at a particular point, I pick seeing my grandchildren. What a ridiculous argument you've made.

no - In fact, at my ripe old age, I got pregnant twice - 4 years apart - on one shot. So I have nothing to be jealous of, as I'm probably still very fertile if I decided to trade in my normal life for a Duggar-like lifestyle.


Breeders who have children as old as their grandchildren are ridiculous. Enough is enough, I say.

And if I were selfish, I would have had more children to care for my younger ones. I have two - again at my ripe old age - and work so that they can attend private school and participate in activities. Furthermore, b/c we have two, we can spend quality time with both kids.

So I am not jealous.

I'm happy. I love my kids, my spouse and my job.

And even if I am not able to see my grandkids (if my kids have children, that is), I'm secure in the fact that my children will be happy and productive individuals.

You, however, seem a bit odd.

[Anonymous]

Oh, I see. I misunderstood.

Well, that goes down to one fundamental question: is there such a thing as absolute truth? Is there a truth about human sexuality that transcends your mind, my mind, any human mind?

What do you think?

That both evades the initial question and answers a question with a question. Classic debating team response of someone who doesn't have a good answer. You said,

It means God designed sex to be unitative and procreative, inseparably so, and it needs to be respected as such.

The question is not about universal truths, or your belief in them. The question is, do you have anything to support your apparent certainty that you know God's intentions, other than other people's certainty that THEY know God's intentions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, I see. I misunderstood.

Well, that goes down to one fundamental question: is there such a thing as absolute truth? Is there a truth about human sexuality that transcends your mind, my mind, any human mind?

What do you think?

That both evades the initial question and answers a question with a question. Classic debating team response of someone who doesn't have a good answer. You said,

It means God designed sex to be unitative and procreative, inseparably so, and it needs to be respected as such.

The question is not about universal truths, or your belief in them. The question is, do you have anything to support your apparent certainty that you know God's intentions, other than other people's certainty that THEY know God's intentions?

I was not evading the question at all.

If you do not believe there is a truth "out there" about human sexuality, then we are just talking past each other. That is why I asked.

We have intellect and will to discern truth, but we also have fallen natures.

So it comes down to authority. Are you your own authority on the truth of human sexuality?

[Anonymous]

More sophistry and evasion. I'll answer your question after you answer mine. It's a yes or no question: do you have any support for your apparent certainty that you know God's intentions, other than other people's certainty that THEY know God's intentions?

[Anonymous]

The Catholics on the thread have the patience of saints, is all I can say. You guys are better people than I am.

Signed,
Not a Catholic and haven't participated so far on this thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:54 Umm, not that poster, but birth control is man made, not a natural occurence.

So are pumpkin spice lattes and computers. And I happily drink them and use them. Not sure why birth control would be any different.

BC is a great invention. People should be able to decide when they want kids, and when they don't.

Agreed. Seems like folks want to dictate when people should use them (to stop having so many children).

So long as they can support the kids which many, many can't. Shouldn't just be a free-for-all. Responsibility has to play a role and sadly it doesn't always.

You're making broad statements without support. Can you prove what you've just claimed?

This entire thread - people sharing stories of big families that didn't have it together.

My point is it is irresponsible to just say "God's will." Sex comes with responsiblity, as does parenthood. Clearly God doesn't care if someone who shouldn't get pregnant does, or there would be no tragic stories of teen pregancies, back alley abortions, etc. If you are responsible about and can handle it, fine, God's will. To a point. The Duggars are not responsible but I don't want to go into it, it was discussed on another thread. But that woman and that man can't be a good dad to all 20 kids, she had the last baby ripped from her 25 weeks because of severe complications, and I can't imagine the pain and all that preemie went through, likely so they could continue their f-ing reality show and get on the Today Show to make their " big announcement!".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No different from the dynamics today where some parents (who are 40+ when they give birth) might not even live to see their grandkids or only do so for a short length of time. (This is barring illnesses, etc that can claim a parent at any age).

uh
not really

If I were a breeder who married in my 20s, I just might mirror the lifestyle of the Duggar mom - competing with my DIL as we go through our pregnancies together.

As a 40-something with two small children, while I may not live long to see my own grandchildren, I sure as hell can't compete with my son's future wife.

apples and oranges

Your explanation reveals you as a very selfish person. Are you one of those women who gets upset if your sister/friend/SIL/aunt/cat gets pregnant when you get pregnant? You want the spotlight on you, is that it? Ugh....you're the worst type of pregnant woman. If the choice is between living to see my grandchildren and "competing" to be the only pregnant one in the family at a particular point, I pick seeing my grandchildren. What a ridiculous argument you've made.

no - In fact, at my ripe old age, I got pregnant twice - 4 years apart - on one shot. So I have nothing to be jealous of, as I'm probably still very fertile if I decided to trade in my normal life for a Duggar-like lifestyle.


Breeders who have children as old as their grandchildren are ridiculous. Enough is enough, I say.

And if I were selfish, I would have had more children to care for my younger ones. I have two - again at my ripe old age - and work so that they can attend private school and participate in activities. Furthermore, b/c we have two, we can spend quality time with both kids.

So I am not jealous.

I'm happy. I love my kids, my spouse and my job.

And even if I am not able to see my grandkids (if my kids have children, that is), I'm secure in the fact that my children will be happy and productive individuals.

You, however, seem a bit odd.

If you were 40+ when you gave birth, I doubt very seriously that you have time to have more to take care of your younger children. But keep telling yourself that.

You do realize that a large family does not equal the Duggar family, correct? Are you capable of seeing shades of gray?

I find 45 y/o mothers of a newborn ridiculous as well. Doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to do what she wants.

Mothers who choose to have large families are happy. They love their kids, their spouses, their jobs. How about we let them worry about how they live their lives, while you do the same, huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More sophistry and evasion. I'll answer your question after you answer mine. It's a yes or no question: do you have any support for your apparent certainty that you know God's intentions, other than other people's certainty that THEY know God's intentions?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More sophistry and evasion. I'll answer your question after you answer mine. It's a yes or no question: do you have any support for your apparent certainty that you know God's intentions, other than other people's certainty that THEY know God's intentions?

Yes. I already gave my support: my will, my intellect, and authority. These are the same supports you have for your position, because you are a human being, as I am.

Now, if you believe there is no such thing as absolute truth regarding human sexuality, then the fact that the conclusions you draw from your personal will, intellect, and authority are different from mine should not trouble you at all. We all get to write our own rules.

But I bet you DO believe there is absolute right and wrong human sexual behavior. You are probably not a fan of Sandusky, or molesting priests, or statutory rapists, or cheaters. You don't give them a pass because they fervently believe they are fulfilling their sexual desires. And you use your will, your intellect, and an appeal to SOME authority to say those sexual behaviors are just plain wrong.

So in regards to separating the unitive and procreative aspects of sex: either it is right or it is wrong to do so. If you were to take a poll of all of humanity who has ever lived, the position that it's A-OK would be in the vast minority. But the truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth transcends a vote.

So why, then, am I sure that my position is correct? First, because it is logically consistent and coherent. Second, because the evidence supports it. And third, because I accept the authority of the Church, because I believe in the Incarnation.

Now, you can use your free will to reject my supports. You can disagree with the logic, reject the evidence, and deny the authority of the Church. You are free to do so.

But the fact that one of us is right and one of us is wrong still stands. Assuming there is right and wrong regarding the nature of sex.

[Anonymous]

(New poster here.)

OP: If the Church were to change its doctrine regarding birth control, would that affect your position? Just curious...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(New poster here.)

OP: If the Church were to change its doctrine regarding birth control, would that affect your position? Just curious...

That's an excellent question, PP.

Some Church teachings, such as a celibate priesthood, are disciplines. Such teachings can change. Other Church teachings are infallible doctrine, and cannot change, such as the immorality of adultery.

The Church's position on the unitive and procreative aspects of sex is an infallible doctrine. It cannot change.

Here is a light summary of the position:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt

I don't turn my brain off when contemplating Church teachings, but there will always come a point when you choose to obey or disobey, submit or refuse, to any teaching. It goes back to authority in the end. Thankfully, God is the Author of reason, so His design for sex is reasonable, just not always easy to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Catholics on the thread have the patience of saints, is all I can say. You guys are better people than I am.

Signed,
Not a Catholic and haven't participated so far on this thread

I am a Catholic and I get really tired of the self righteous breeder mentality. I've been subjected to it all my life. The problem with these people is that they are often horribly judgmental people and very condescending to those who didn't produce as many kids as they did. I'll ignore their choice to have an irresponsibly large family if they'll just shut up already about how they're living God's will by quickly moving from pregnancy to pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So why, then, am I sure that my position is correct? First, because it is logically consistent and coherent. Second, because the evidence supports it. And third, because I accept the authority of the Church, because I believe in the Incarnation.

Now, you can use your free will to reject my supports. You can disagree with the logic, reject the evidence, and deny the authority of the Church. You are free to do so.

But the fact that one of us is right and one of us is wrong still stands. Assuming there is right and wrong regarding the nature of sex.

What is the logic and evidence that supports your position?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:54 Umm, not that poster, but birth control is man made, not a natural occurence.

So are pumpkin spice lattes and computers. And I happily drink them and use them. Not sure why birth control would be any different.

BC is a great invention. People should be able to decide when they want kids, and when they don't.

Agreed. Seems like folks want to dictate when people should use them (to stop having so many children).

So long as they can support the kids which many, many can't. Shouldn't just be a free-for-all. Responsibility has to play a role and sadly it doesn't always.

You're making broad statements without support. Can you prove what you've just claimed?

This entire thread - people sharing stories of big families that didn't have it together.

My point is it is irresponsible to just say "God's will." Sex comes with responsiblity, as does parenthood. Clearly God doesn't care if someone who shouldn't get pregnant does, or there would be no tragic stories of teen pregancies, back alley abortions, etc. If you are responsible about and can handle it, fine, God's will. To a point. The Duggars are not responsible but I don't want to go into it, it was discussed on another thread. But that woman and that man can't be a good dad to all 20 kids, she had the last baby ripped from her 25 weeks because of severe complications, and I can't imagine the pain and all that preemie went through, likely so they could continue their f-ing reality show and get on the Today Show to make their " big announcement!".

So one thread speaks for the millions of large families across the world? Gotcha. Perhaps we should start a thread to see how many came from 1/2 sibling homes where the child was neglected, physically abused, molested, emotionally/psychologically abused, etc. If we get responses that experienced this, what would that then mean? Should humans just stop procreating altogether? And again, you're jumping to extremes. How many women do you know with 20 kids? You're finding an extreme example to make your case....it's not a good debate tactic.