Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Religion
Reply to "The SSPX now has a Church in Washington DC"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]If by growing you mean a push for female members to have lots of births, sure.[/quote] What's wrong with women choosing to have "lots of births?" And what's wrong with suggesting or accepting and supporting that as a worthy vocation for women, who are the only ones with the capacity to bear children? Do you seriously believe that in this day and age any woman in the USA can be "pushed" into involuntary reproduction? Multiple times?[/quote] because the vast majority of women don't have more than a max of 3 kids unless they are convinced by a patriarchal cult that their primary value is to reproduce, and that a weird and nonsensical rule put into place by childless men means they can't use effective birth control. I have no issue with women who genuinely want a large family, but not if they are pressured to do it by their church or family. Having more babies than a woman wants or can take care of well is really, really horrible. I think people these days just don't realize what it was like when Catholic women had to have 6-7-8-9 babies. Any religion that pressures women and families in any way to have or not have kids is immoral. families are all unique and should decide on the number of kids they feel they can take care of well and want -- and no other factor. [/quote] So, then, you agree that a woman who finds a fulfilling and satisfying vocation as a mother of what some might consider a large family is perfectly free to pursue that end? Or should she be badgered by third parties regarding her association with what they perceive to be "patriarchal" and/or a cult? Or judged for her well-informed decision not to use "effective" birth control, which presumably means some sort of chemical intervention with all sorts of potential side effects, not to mention moral issues? [/quote] I'm saying if she is a member of a church where men have all the control and make having lots of kids and not using birth control a main tenent of belief -- no, she is not making that choice freely. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics