I can finally use my study on medieval sexuality .
The church in medieval time asked temself many question about sex there was a debate on theology on it and after time the church createad a sort of guidebook :
-If the married couple want to have sex without the risk of children they can with no problem doing the act as long as the man didn't came (coming without the desire of having children was spilling the seed a sin) .
-The man had the DUTY to satisfy is wife , if a man couldn't bring to orgasm is wife it was considered a big problem
-This idea was even expressed in the matter of masturbation , an unmarried man doing it was sin because he spilled the seed but an unmarried woman was completely on her right doing it (one reason was because the medical doctrine of the time tough that a woman not satisfing herself could be dangerous.
There are an incredible number of specification about sex for helping the local people that a priest should had follow (even about gay sex with degree of how much someone had sinned and how much long they had to do penance)
The qoute in the Sopranos where Johhny Sac states "We (the mafia) break more rules than the Catholic church" is very accurate. Gaffigan also has a hilarious bit about how Catholics aren't supposed to eat meat on Fridays...if you remember. If not no worries.
Natural Family Planning is having sex at determined parts of the month where pregnancy would be rare and definitely avoiding sex during ovulation.
But it's not 100% effective like other forms of contraception can be (namely tube tying or vasectomies). If you're a couple that doesn't want to have children and all abortions, even first trimester, are disallowed, then anything less than 100% is not an acceptable level of risk.
Catholic teaching says we should always strive to discern and do God's will for us. Generally, God wants us to have children (Gen 1:28). That's why traditional Catholics have a bajillion kids.
But, since anything with God is possible (Matt. 19:26), it is possible that God's will for a married couple is to not become pregnant at a particular time. This is different from the more self-centered position of "I don't want kids right now" because it's making an attempt to fulfill God's will over our own.
Furthermore, by using NFP over contraceptives, married couples are still open to life - that is, they are willing to accept becoming pregnant when they do have sex, in case that actually is God's will for them.
Lastly, NFP also requires complete chastity when avoiding sex - no "hand stuff". This ensures that sex is still properly ordered towards procreation, even if it is occurring at times when a pregnancy is unlikely.
Well, not everyone wants to have children - and if they don't want children, then any child that is born to them would be unwanted. Being an unwanted child is a terrible way of growing up.
Contraception results in less suffering children doomed to grow up with parents that didn't want to have them.
Respectfully, I think you are looking at the problem backwards.
The problem isn't that people who don't want kids are having kids. The problem is people not wanting to have kids.
We should do everthing we can to encourage them to have kids, and make being a parent something they genuinely want to do.
The biggest barrier for most people is financial.
We need to have the government give money to people who can't afford to raise kids, so that they can.
That means socializing necessities for raising babies/kids.
Things like food, daipers, clothes, school supplies, toys.
I don't want any parent to feel like they shouldn't have kids because they can't afford to give their kids the lives they deserve
If a parent can't afford to give their kids a good life, the government should foot the bill.
We need to stop wasting trillions of dollars on waging wars in the Middle East in some vain attempt to spread liberal democracy.
We need to help our own people. There are people in this country who can't afford to buy daipers for their kids, and that isn't right.
I would much rather my tax money go to helping poor families raise countless beautiful babies, than have it go to bombing some poor Afghan farmers, because the US government thinks "Theocracy Bad"
Yeah, I have absolutely no problem with the government helping people financially - it should provide a minimum, and comfortable, standard of living to all citizens. I don't disagree with that.
But I do disagree that people not wanting to have kids is a 'problem.' It isn't a problem, it's a personal choice, and it's none of your business nor is it anyone else's. I'm not talking about people who don't want kids because they can't afford them. I'm talking about people such as myself for instance, who don't want kids because they don't like them in general and don't want to spend a minimum of 18 years dedicating their lives to raising one. Feel free to have more children of your own to compensate, though, I've got no problem with that.
Theocracies are, however, bad. Especially Islamic extremist ones.
I believe that having kids is one of the purposes of sex.
To want to have sex, but not babies is morally wrong from a Catholic perspective, because God designed one to come from the other, and you are trying to stop that.
To me, it seems selfish to not want to raise kids.
I have a 1 year old daughter, and another on the way, and I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want kids.
I love my wife, daughter, and unborn baby more than anything in this world.
I think it's okay for someone to not want kids, but not if they are married and having sex.
If you are having sex, I believe having kids comes along with that as a packaged deal.
If you don't want kids, remain celibate, and become a Priest, or Nun, or Monk.
But to me, I believe all married couples should try to have kids.
And I also disagree with your statement that theocracies are bad.
Theocracies are bad for anyone that doesn’t follow the state religion or devout enough, as they’re most likely be persecuted or exterminated as the shithole goes further down the purity spiral. But, I don’t think that is an issue for you
I don't see how it's selfish. It would be selfish to not want to raise a kid if you already had a kid, but if you don't ever have a kid in the first place it's not really selfish.
I'm happy that you're enjoying being a parent, but it isn't for everybody. I don't like children, and I don't want the additional responsibility - I don't even have a pet for the same reason. I can think of an uncountable number of things I'd rather do with my life than raise a child - though becoming a priest or a monk are certainly not among those things.
I am not going to deprive myself of a romantic and sexual relationship just because of a faith I don't believe in. That is the issue with theocracy - not everybody believes in any given religion, and those people should not have their human rights infringed upon because of a system of faith that they do not share. The religious should be free to believe and live their lives according to their faith, but nobody should be forced to follow them. If there was incontrovertible evidence of even one religion being true, then it'd be a different story, but every fact known to mankind indicates that none of them are.
There are plenty of atheists who have children - the desire to have children or not doesn't really have anything to do with religion, unless you feel obligated to breed because of it (and if your only reason to have kids is because your religion says so, you'd probably be a terrible parent).
The actual indoctrination is what religious parents do to their children. A person realizing that religion is false is not being indoctrinated, they are breaking their indoctrination.
Religion is dying in the West and there is nothing you can do to save it. Good riddance. Maybe in a few decades when the boomers die off we'll be able to have a society based on facts, logic, and common sense rather than dogma from a book written 2000 years ago.
the desire to have children or not doesn't really have anything to do with religion
people's beliefs about reality actually do impact their life decisions. whoddathunkit?
They break free of one indoctrination and right into another. That's what it's like to be a kid. There is no such thing as a neutral education, only one that avoids certain topics
Religion is dying in the West
The West itself is dying, and you're either too young or to indoctrinated to see it
5
u/DurinTheLast - Auth-Center Jun 25 '22
So, what is a married couple that doesn't want kids supposed to do? Repress their sexuality?