The Truth Is More Important Than The Facts: starting out

let's start with artificial insemination (or lets go with general artificially created pregnacy.) is it selfish.. this can't be questioned. i'm not belittling people for desiring their own genetic offspring, it is a powerful emotional and physical motivator. but whether it be out of pride or simple fear of failure, it is still selfish. it is an unfortunate place to be. perhaps the greatest condradiction is that most of these people say (and for the most part i believe them) that they want to have children because they love/want to love and raise children. if this is the case, why not adopt one of thousands, nay, millions of orphans around the world and give them a loving nurturing home. again.. selfishness.

would/does God approve? i don't know. how much will God allow us to play with nature. at what point does medical manipulation of our bodies become mutilation of the temple. i don't know.. one tends to wonder if the commandment to share Gods love (especially with the "widows and orphans") supercedes His command to reproduce.

to me the bigger question is why does fertiliy seem to be an increasing problem in the western world? what are we doing to ourselves?

recent research into the biblical purpose and definition of marriage has made me come to the conclusion that it all boils down too two things: companionship and reproduction. from what i've read these are similar to the "love God and love your neighbor as yourself" commandment, in that, they are inseparably tied to one another. now i certainly understand the practical reasons for postponing having children (money, education, "timing"). these all make sense to me. where i then go is to this question; if reproduction and the creation of a family is an defining part of marriage, should one get married if one is not ready to have a family? also sex is first and foremost reproductive. as sensually wonderful and emotionally bonding an experience it is (i assume), it's primary function is to reproduce. removing this function seems to fight against what God has created us to do in favour of pleasure without responsibility. i would love to talk to someone who uses or used birth control about this to see how they rationalize it within the context of a christian marriage, but it seems a rather awkward subject (which is strange for me.)

i will add this disclaimer: i do not face either of these situations at this point in my life, and my statements and ideas are based purely on anylitical observation. i recognize that these subjects involve a great deal of emotion for those affected and do not wish to hurt them, i am simply stating what i see to be true. if it were (or when it is) me i really cannot guarantee i would continue to support these opinions.

Comments

that is true. people SHOULD think of adopting if they can't have their own children. sometimes i wonder if even if i COULD have children if it would STILL not be better to adopt. i want my own children because i think it would be an incredible thing, however, there are SO MANY children who need to be loved already.

Posted by: amelia | September 28, 2005 5:23 AM

Being a woman who is using birth control inside of marraige, I can talk to you about it (and I don't mind at all, ask away!). I don't want children right now, because I know I'm (emotionally and financially) not ready for them. (My parents have agreed.) :) I don't even think a couple SHOULD necessarily just jump in and have children right away after marraige... some people should learn how to live together before bringing someone new into the mix. I don't think sex is only good for procreation... as you mentioned, it's also something that binds a couple together emotionally, physically and spiritually. If a couple KNOWS they do not want children EVER, then sex may not be for them... because inevitably, mistakes happen. As much as I think sex is for people to show love, it is without saying a procreative method. Like you said Matt, one should not take the pleasure without the responsibility.

Posted by: Crystal | September 28, 2005 4:30 PM

couple of points:

using "i'm not ready" as a reason doesn't work since anyone with any sense would say they aren't "ready" to have children. it seems to work out alot of the time though.

finances are a sketchy basis because many families raise healthy happy children in healthy homes without alot of money.

both of those could be summed up as "it is currently inconvienent to have children, as we would not be able to provide them the home setting we would like." this is a very comendable feeling.

"learn to live together" is an interesting idea. the question could be asked: a child will drastically change the way in which a marriage works and is viewed by both partners, why then get settled in one state of mind and "learn to live together" in one way only to re-arrange things into another down the road? why not do it all at once and learn to be a family instead of learning to be a couple and then learning to be a family?

your statement about "If a couple KNOWS they do not want children EVER, then sex may not be for them... because inevitably, mistakes happen." is interesting. how is it that if you don't want children maybe you shouldn't have sex, but if you don't want children right now go ahead just use contreceptives until you do. sounds like a double standard.

i understand the practical reasons for birth control, but practicality is subjective and what the Bible teaches on some things contradicts what we see to be practical. i'm not saying there isn't anything in the Bible that supports birth control, i'm saying i haven't read it. please show me those, that's what i'm looking for.

Posted by: eustace (matt w) | September 29, 2005 6:08 PM

re: learning to live together comments

I think there are a lot of couples who don't know how to live as a couple without children and therefore split up or lead unhappy married lives after the children grow and move on. I think that it could be a very good thing for a couple to spend some time getting used to living as two for this reason. Also, couples who do spend that time as two will probably be able to see themselves apart from the children even while the children are in the house. That is, although they may have children and increase the family size over time they may retain a lot of the romance of couplehood throughout (and perhaps enjoy the kids more as a result). But I'm purely speculating.

Posted by: caro | September 29, 2005 8:21 PM

well, i don't see why that would help. in fact if you get used to being able to do whatever whenever to be "romantic" (what a silly word) and then you have kids you have to find a whole new way of making it happen. then after 18 to 25 years (for one child) you are all of a sudden back to where you were before, except now you might try to remember how things were before you had kids, instead of trying to learn something new. pretty complicated either way. waiting just adds another step.

The Truth Is More Important Than The Facts

starting out

Comments

Post a comment