Posted on 08/04/2013 8:34:51 AM PDT by Kip Russell
One evening when she was 14 years old, Laura Scott was washing dishes in the kitchen with her mother when she decided she didn't want to have a child. At 26, Scott got married and waited for her mind to change. "It never happened," she says. "And I realized I was going to be fine." Now 50, Scott is more than fine: she's fulfilled. And she's not alone. The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest in recorded American history. From 2007 to 2011, the most recent year for which there's data, the fertility rate declined 9%. A 2010 Pew Research report showed that childlessness has risen across all racial and ethnic groups, adding up to about 1 in 5 American women who end their childbearing years maternity-free, compared with 1 in 10 in the 1970s.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
“Have you ever travelled our country? It’s EMPTY!”
Lots of it is, but that doesn’t mean we have to go and fill it up. Hell, in many good places I like to travel there are now too many people as it is.
“all the illegals were gone, our country would probably be about 40 million or more less people.”
I would be very comfortable with that. 260 sounds about right.
Hm...what about a couple who gets married after the woman can no longer bear children? Their marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the begetting and raising of children. Are they not married?
And if they are, why wouldn't a younger couple who choose not have children be "really" married?
Totally works for me.
I can see where a reading of that scripture could lead to just that interpretation. If I subscribed to one of the Abrahamic faiths this would be a cause of concern to me on a personal level. Since I don't...
Shrug.
I can’t answer for him, but I can answer for me!
If a couple cannot have children due to infertility or age, that’s different (obviously...) than a couple who could have children but choose not to. There is more to marriage than child raising - companionship, love, a best friend you live with, for better and worse, and all that good stuff. If people want to space children out and not have set after set of Irish twins, it’s not hard to avoid sex during fertility. But of course there are always pregnancies anyway on the odd occasion. So a marriage in which the husband and wife are adamantly opposed to ever having children means they must use mechanical or other devices to prevent children, or get sterilized, or have abortions.
All very unnatural and harmful, in divers ways.
A homosexual or lesbian “marriage” cannot create a union. It really is as simple as that. Toys and anal cavities don’t count.
I think more and more people realize that the government and those steering it are going to crash into the iceberg pretty soon. Or have already actually, and the floor is starting to tilt.
SOrry for mixing metaphors and all that.
Sounds like a good recipe for a loving marriage, whether one has children or not.
So a marriage in which the husband and wife are adamantly opposed to ever having children means they must use mechanical or other devices to prevent children, or get sterilized, or have abortions.
All very unnatural and harmful, in divers ways.
I agree, birth control and sterilization is unnatural.
So is a spaceship. That doesn't make it bad. I don't see the slightest problem with a husband and wife choosing to use artificial means to prevent conception. That's their business and no one else's.
Indeed. His perverted mentality doesn't allow him to inspect the results of what he does, nor can he allow himself to to accept any degree of responsibility for anything that happens on his watch.
Using a different analogy, it's as though he's a disturbed child who's constantly and deliberately injuring the goose that laid the golden egg. At the same time, he's railing about the fact that the golden goose isn't laying enough golden eggs for the poor geese who do nothing but lay around in the pond all day, contributing nothing to anyone.
He doesn't see that he's responsible for the fact that the goose can't lay more eggs, or that he's not helping the layabouts by forcing another to pay their way. He doesn't see that this won't end well, because the golden goose will stop laying altogether at some point.
What's his solution? Beat on the goose some more. Yeah, that'll work.
Comparing a space ship to contraceoption...
Hmmm...
Contraception was the open door to what we have now. Divorcing sex from biology opened a pandora’s box. Of course hedonists without a belief in God will not see this. And I am not referring just to “Abrahamic” religions. All religions understand the connection between sex, children and marriage at least in the original teachings and scriptures. Many have succumbed to the temptation of secularism.
Plus many forms of contraception are abortifacients, and many cause damage to the woman, such as IUDs and birth control pills, most of which are abortifacients as well.
By the same token, there are also people who thought they didn't want kids, but then they have them - maybe because of a "mistake" - and can't imagine life without them!
Speaking from personal experience:
The Catholic Church I remembered really promoted marriage and family. It encouraged young men and women to marry and to start a family and have as many children as possible.
The Protestant churches I attended in my late teens and early twenties had an altogether different emphasis. The agenda was to be as "perfect" as possible and to be a "whole person" because only a "whole person" would be fit for marriage. But who would be perfect enough when young, when the ideal time for marriage and starting a family is such a small window?
I believe part of this was that the Protestant churches were (without directly admitting it) reflecting popular culture and the "Me Generation" spirit of the times. It goes without saying that there was premarital sex (and various kinds of contraception, and cohabitation) practiced by many of the young people. Take that strong sex drive away from the proper goal of marriage and starting a family, and all kinds of havoc ensues.
It's called an analogy. You criticized contraception for being unnatural...as if being unnatural was inherently negative.
Have I said something that in any way indicates that I am in favor of or support gay "marriage"? I am opposed to it completely.
While an older couple may be known to be infertile, prior to marriage, they may still be validly married, since there comes a time for all married couples when the couple can no longer bear children. Like the latter couple, the former couple has not rejected their natural fertility.
For the term marriage to have any meaning, it must be defined. A natural marriage is the lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, for the two-fold purpose of begetting and raising children, and the mutual care of the spouses for each other.
This can be proven negatively, since any other definition, which leaves out any part of this definition, can be categorized as friendship, fornication, companionship, etc.
And if they are, why wouldn't a younger couple who choose not have children be "really" married?
The answer to this question depends upon whether you believe that the human reproductive system is correctly named.
Some people act as if intercourse is ordered only toward pleasure. But while the act is pleasurable, it is obvious that the act is designed to result in the generation of children, just as the act of eating is ordered toward nutrition, and not pleasure alone.
Consider the following analogy. Everyone understands that gorging and vomiting is wrong. But few bother to consider why. The reason is that the bulimic is separating the pleasurable aspect of eating from its overarching purpose, nutrition. (Not surprisingly, the practice results in medical complications, as does --surprise!-- artificial means of induced sterility).
When two fertile people commit to a lifetime together without children, i.e., with the intention to use permanent or temporary means of induced sterility, they are rejecting the natural end of the unitive marital act, and the natural end of marriage itself.
No. You haven’t said anything in support of gay marriage. I was agreeing with your point that homosexuals do not have the correct anatomy to create a marital union.
Who's going to pay the taxes to fund your social security? Other people's children.
Who's going to work to pay for your 401K and your annuities? Other people's children.
When you get sick, who's going to care for you? Other people's children.
When you're old and feeble, who's going to care for you? Other people's children.
If the country is attacked, who's going to defend it, and you? Other people's children.
There may be some legitimate reasons for not wanting children, such as not wanting to pass on a genetic defect, or a religious vow of celibacy. Other than that, however, refusing to have children so you can enjoy life is to sponge off the efforts, time, and trouble of all those other people who have children. That's nothing but selfishness.
Bingo! We had this in our family with the in-law women. Everyone got along well enough until the parents got old and starting making plans. Then, what a mess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.