Said Pope Francis, quoted in "Don’t choose pets over children, Pope Francis says as birthrates drop" (WaPo).
Not having children, he said, “takes some of our humanity away.”
January 6, 2022
"Today… we see a form of selfishness... We see that some people do not want to have a child..."
"It might [seem] better — more comfortable — to have a dog, two cats, and the love goes to the two cats and the dog. Is this true or not? Have you seen it? Then, in the end this marriage comes to old age in solitude, with the bitterness of loneliness."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
99 comments:
So an avowed, sworn celibate head of the real pedophile ring, is telling the rest of the dying world it's selfish to not bring children into our failing civilisation? Alright Popey - dream-on!
H
In old age you have the dog, who doesn't care if you're old. Kids moved away long ago.
Pope Francis chose celibacy over children.
And to the pope I say, "Woof, woof."
How many children does the Pope have?
When a man chooses to be a celibate priest — if he's true to his vows — he's assuming a fatherly role toward all the families, all of the children. It's supposed to orient him toward all of the children, rather that to be focused on his own family.
Elon Musk says a low birth rate is a bigger threat to our survival than climate change.
A low birth rate decreases the chances for climate change Einsteins to be born.
The situation is even worse than the pope sentence Althouse pulled suggest...
"Worldometer reported that abortion was the leading cause of death globally in 2021 with nearly 43 million killed by the procedure"
Stop opposing birth control and make having children an actual option for observant Catholic women, you pontificating old fart.
He literally runs an organization that demands celibacy of most of its employees.
You don't really grow up until you have kids.
Plural.
Wonder if he's got any advice for the 'baby mama' crowd.
and the love goes to the two cats and the dog.
nothing supports you in your old age; like two cats and the dog!
People who live in Vatican Palaces shouldn't throw stones at the celibate. I wonder how much solace Jeffrey Dahmer's parents found in their old age.
It’s okay if you choose to not have children or have fewer children. All the whinging is for the perceived economic effects like the desire of receiving a check from the government for indulging your genetic predisposition to procreate or a misguided belief in the ponzi aspect of entitlement programs.
If you don’t have children there’s one family somewhere that will make up for your family’s child deficit and a bunch of others, and there’s a bunch of those one family somewhere’s.
Lay off the morality you prigs.
Well he's right and I'm sorry but I really wanted my child to have two parents in the home.
But there's been this problem between men and women, regarding commitment.
It's fraught
@Althouse -- unintended irony: "he's assuming a fatherly role toward all the families, all of the children. It's supposed to orient him toward all of the children"
Many Catholic priests indeed became oriented toward all of the children, but in an unintended way.
Humans are animals and do a great job of living an animal lifestyle. Humans don't do so well merging a rational ideology or dogma with their animal essence.
Do we get to introduce Social Security and Medicare into this topic?
That is after all what this is all about.
"You don't really grow up until you have kids.
Plural."
Is that the moment when you start calling for hanging from lamp posts people with whom you disagree?
He's right. I chose to have no children due to a genetic illness in my family.
I now regret it every day. My sadly denuded and aging social circle lies outside the vigorous and mysterious solar system of the future. If I had known then what I know now, I would have used literature to teach my students -- teach them more -- the centrality of family life in human fullness.
Some days I hope I will precede my husband in death. Not a threat, just a wish, because he is the best man I have ever met. He knows my sole wish for him is to have a child, or ten. Meanwhile we can give our children children's books: Five Little Peppers, Little Women, Cheaper By The Dozen, and so on, to expose them to what the fertile world once once.
And, as a practicing Catholic, the Pope's still a rotter commie.
MalaiseLongue said
“Stop opposing birth control and make having children an actual option for observant Catholic women, you pontificating old fart.”
I understand the Pope is against birth control, but since when has the Pope been against observant Catholic women having children?
Or are you suggesting that without birth control observant Catholic women don’t have any “option” over when/whether to have children?
That’s bizarre to me. They always have an option to avoid having children. And birth control does nothing for them if they want children but are unable to conceive/carry to term.
Seems like people in this world are always focused on “I want what I want” and “I want sex whenever I want it” and “I shouldn’t have to be burdened with a baby” kind of selfish views of this world.
Yes birth control can allow you to have sex without babies. And fertility doctors can help people have babies without sex (even without spouses). The Church marries the two together. I think it was JP II who discussed at length the evils of separating sex from life (babies). Instead of sex without the possibility of children (i.e, birth control, etc) and babies without sex (i.e., artificial insemination), the “intent” or “ordered purpose” is to marry for life, one man to one woman, and have the sex be based in love and always open to children. Whether you get them or not.
But even observant married couples can always seek to avoid children if it’d be a burden, by abstaining from sex or learning how to count…
>>Is that the moment when you start calling for hanging from lamp posts people with whom you disagree?
No, harrogate. It's the moment you realize that Achilles can be right about maturity and having kids, and wrong about much else.
DanTheMan: He's not even right about maturity and having kids.
We had the kids--two daughters now in their early 50s. It was a growing experience and an adventure. We also had the dogs along the way. Now in our late 70s we have what will probably be our last dog and the little critter functions as a sort of surrogate child for my wife. The adage a happy wife makes for a happy life is true, and the critter has earned a lifetime supply of kibble. So the Pope can leave the dog alone!
That's on a micro scale. On the macro scale the Pope is probably right. A decreasing population--whether due to reduced fertility and failure to reproduce--or through disease and epidemics --e.g the Plague in the Medieval world has typically caused problems and or drastic changes in the way we live.
The Pope is correct.
The issue isn't celibacy, it's that using pets as a replacement for children makes a mockery of the natural order as laid out by God. Man has domination over the natural world. The relationship between man and beast is different than that of parent and child.
Wow, so much lashing out. Methinks Benedict hit a nerve! I particularly like the following from MalaiseLounge: "Stop opposing birth control and make having children an actual option for observant Catholic women, you pontificating old fart." The anger and complete incoherence is just so choice. Opposing birth control makes having children more likely which is consistent with the Pope's position in this statement. How would supporting birth control "...make having children an actual option..." when birth control makes having children less likely (as it is the entire purpose of birth control)?
I agree with Achilles. A person is not fully adult until they have children. I feel pity for people who would like to have children but can't. They are missing out on part of the human experience. It is unlikely that people who are not parents can understand depth of love, the willingness to sacrifice that a parent feels for their child. No, your emotional attachment to your "fur baby" is not the same. There is a reason the Bible repeatedly reminds us that God gave up His Son for death to save us. Parents understand the depth of that sacrifice.
Clearly people who CHOOSE not to have children are being selfish (unless they are among the nutters who actively wish for the extinction of humanity because they believe Earth and the universe will be getter without us). Why does one choose not to have children? For the most part because they perceive that the cost/benefit ratio is not favorable for them. But, without children there is no future society. If everyone does the cost/benefit analysis and reaches the same conclusion and consequently forgoes children, humanity goes extinct. It appears that this is precisely the direction we are headed and it is the reason for the Pope's statement.
Now if we want to talk about problems with the Pope, we could start with the fact that he's a commie and continue with his protection of pedophiles within the Church. This particular statement (at least what I've read) is one of his better statements.
>“Today … we see a form of selfishness,” the pope said...“We see that some people do not want to have a child.”<
I've heard this "selfishness" claim many times over the years in regard to those who have chosen to not have children. It is claim made by ignorant people who do not know the meaning of the word they are using. Though I would have thought it common knowledge, virtually every dictionary specifies two conditions for "selfishness": 1) a concern for one's own welfare or advantage 2) *at the expense of or in disregard of others*.
Can anyone tell me: At whose expense or in disregard of whom, exactly, falls the decision to not procreate? If you can't tell me that, be sure to never use that hackneyed "selfish" nonsense in regard to childless people.
Here's a guy, who along with those he leads, runs around in a dress.
And he's lecturing me?
And all those Muzzies in their dresses.
If there is one thing an RC clergyman is used to it's jabs about his speaking on the subject of marriages and families.
An economic aspect. Many Catholics drift away from Mass and the collection plate as young adults, but return when they get married and start a family. And if they have gotten married in a church they have sort of pledged to their priest to have children.
Children can be a blessing in old age for sure. But when my widowed mother was offered the chance move in with one or other of her numerous offspring, all of whom lived in other places, she said thanks, but no thanks. Gave same answer again when covid hit.
For once I am in agreement with Pope Francis. I and my friends now have adult children in their twenties and early thirties, and a surprising number of these adult kids have declared already that they do not want to have children, period. I don't know exactly how or why but their generation is receiving strong messaging that it's best to remain "child-free."
All else being equal, how can most people NOT want to experience the deepest love that they will ever feel in their lives? And logically, since most people recognize that family is an irreplaceable, good thing, how do they not realize that having children is how you GET more family??
'When a man chooses to be a celibate priest — if he's true to his vows — he's assuming a fatherly role toward all the families, all of the children. It's supposed to orient him toward all of the children, rather that to be focused on his own family.'
Thank you...
For whatever reason, anything related to the Roman Catholic Church seems to bring out all of the religious bigots on this forum (and elsewhere).
I'm no fan of this particular Pope, but at least have some respect for the office and the 1.3B Catholics in the world...
When a man chooses to be a celibate priest — if he's true to his vows — he's assuming a fatherly role toward all the families, all of the children. It's supposed to orient him toward all of the children, rather that to be focused on his own family.
I'm not Catholic, but is that the bullshit they are selling? How do they justify cloistered priests, nuns, and monks?
>Bitter Clinger said...
It is unlikely that people who are not parents can understand depth of love, the willingness to sacrifice that a parent feels for their child.<
Such ignorant arrogance! You don't know squat about the depth of mature, worldly-wise, love and sacrifice-experienced, childless people.
From Children of Men by P.D. James:
The christening party was coming up the path, the old man, now wearing a stole, shepherding them with small cries of encouragement. There were two middle-aged women and two older men, the men soberly dressed in blue suits, the women wearing flowered hats, incongruous above their winter coats. Each of the women was carrying a white bundle wrapped in a shawl beneath which fell the lace-trimmed pleated folds of christening robes. Theo made to pass them, eyes tact- fully averted, but the two women almost barred his way and, smiling the meaningless smile of the half-demented, thrust forward the bundles, inviting his admiration. The two kittens, ears flattened beneath the ribboned bonnets, looked both ridiculous and endearing. Their eyes were wide-open, uncomprehending opal pools, and they seemed worried at their confinement. He wondered if they had been drugged, then decided that they had probably been handled, caressed and carried like babies since birth and were accustomed to it. He wondered, too, about the priest. Whether validly ordained or an impostor-and there were plenty about-he was hardly engaged in an orthodox rite. The Church of England, no longer with a common doctrine or a common liturgy, was so fragmented that there was no knowing what some sects might not have come to believe, but he doubted whether the christening of animals was encouraged. The new Archbishop, who described herself as a Christian Rationalist, would, he suspected, have prohibited infant baptism on the grounds of superstition, had infant baptism still been possible. But she could hardly control what was happening in every redundant church. The kittens presumably would not welcome a douche of cold water over their heads, but no one else was likely to object. The charade was a fitting conclusion to a morning of folly. He set off walking vigorously towards sanity and that empty inviolate house he called home.
I subscribe to the belief that everyone is selfish, and that there are a lot of reasons why people decide to have children or not. I'm someone raised in a large intact family who has always been thankful for that. Never had children, but also never married, and I'm confident that had I married when younger I would also have had children.
I believe the biggest issue is out of wedlock births and children being raised in single parent households. I wish the Pope could do more to reduce those, but I don't have any advice for him. Except to tell him to forget about same sex marriage. Railing against it "in defense of marriage and families" is a bad look.
Tina Trent said: "If I had known then what I know now, I would have used literature to teach my students -- teach them more -- the centrality of family life in human fullness."
Beautifully stated! The younger generations are NOT getting the message that committed marriage and children are worthwhile goals for almost everyone. I have a theory that our culture is also not producing enough people who are prepared to BE a good life-long partner. Divas and Peter Pans are not typically a solid, mature, nurturing partners.
Benedict was our last Pope- Francis is our current Pope.
I never used contraception- once I knew the “pull and pray” was(actually) coitus interruptus. I always said to God: I am an empty vessel- fill me… while hoping He knew how much I could carry. I guess 4 was my limit.
So much birth control- isn’t that what’s causing the frogs to grow extra limbs and fish becoming hemaphrodites?
I feel society was driven into a 2income living situation so our children would leave mommas as early as possible. It’s a conspiracy theory of mine… Animal Farm again.
I never had a pet until I lived with women who were mad about their dogs and cats. I suspect I could have been a good father because I easily adjusted to having to look after another person's pets, which go through an accelerated life cycle. But I never thought these women would start having kids if only they would dump their pets.
harrogate said...
"You don't really grow up until you have kids.
Plural."
Is that the moment when you start calling for hanging from lamp posts people with whom you disagree?
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I enjoy discussion on difficult problems.
I have a problem with people who want to repeal the first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments and act like the 9th and 10th amendment don't exist.
The only people I want treated like fascists that are incompatible with a free society are fascists that are incompatible with a free society.
I'm going to disagree with you, bitter clinger, while sticking to my original point. What I have lost is not present or past, but future. In the present and past, I experienced the full range of emotions, and I would challenge you to find differently. But as life comes creeping on its tiny feet, I keenly feel what has been lost from my future.
And that's a feeling too. One we may be able to use to encourage higher natality. Kindly. With kindness. You never really know another person's situation, nor their pain.
I am a full adult, with adult responsibilities that may not conform to parenthood but are as loving and as challenging as any parent's. My dogs are dogs, not fur babies. Ugh. I have experienced things I hope you never experience, as all good people do for others. That is humanity's baseline.
By the way, the Pope's still a commie, so watch very carefully whether he encourages birth or family cohesion. The latter is anathema to communism.
The kinds of people who don't have children will tend to be underrepresented in future generations. (We don't have sterile castes like honeybees, yet.) This is evolution in action.
If the Pope really believes this, he should immediately end the celibacy requirement for priests. They should be leading their parishes by example, by have many children.
I might go further, and deny ordination to anyone who has not yet married and fathered a child. I would also admit women to the priesthood, so I am not a conventional Catholic.
He has a point. But Francis is also a long-time and often scold.
On the other hand, with a child you must project out 80, 100 years. Would you bring a child into the world of 1910 Russia if you knew their life would be spent enslaved to communism, the Soviet State? Perhaps if you were Russian peasant, but what if you had known individual liberty?
Everyone knows in their heart and soul the Pope is correct. Vicious response, but that is to be expected.
Could you imagine if a high profile democrat publicly stated that women should get married and have children? Toss in scrap this "dog mom" bullshit-you're a pet owner?
Why, they'd be banished from the Satanic Temple-...er, democrat party.
Francis says a Catholic thing! And I, non-Catholic, agree with him!
A doubly amazing day.
An elderly bachelor friend of mine once said that the loneliness of his solitary life was more than compensated for, by the lack of ignorance, idiocy and insanity which might be forced upon him by a mate or family, as he had seen in every married couple he ever knew. As part of one of those couples he knew, I am an example of at least one of those, maybe more than one.
"My sadly denuded and aging social circle"
Boy howdy.
Our number one responsibility as citizens is to raise the next generation of citizens. Any other choice is selfish and irresponsible.
It is possible to do that without having children yourself (which the pope has done, for all the ninnies in this thread making fun of him while ignoring his point), but for most of us, that's the way.
It is unlikely that people who are not parents can understand depth of love, the willingness to sacrifice that a parent feels for their child.
Jesus didn't have children. And yet, He is the fullness of love. And He knows something of willingness to sacrifice. You may want to rethink your argument.
“I agree with Achilles. A person is not fully adult until they have children. I feel pity for people who would like to have children but can't. They are missing out on part of the human experience. It is unlikely that people who are not parents can understand depth of love, the willingness to sacrifice that a parent feels for their child. No, your emotional attachment to your "fur baby" is not the same. There is a reason the Bible repeatedly reminds us that God gave up His Son for death to save us. Parents understand the depth of that sacrifice”
I very much agree. One thing that we have noticed is that you can often tell fairly quickly whether someone has kids, because of how dogmatic they are. How black and white they see the world.
We are now of an age, where a lot of the effort is starting to pay off. We had a family party two days before Christmas this year. Present were the two of us, our three kids, their spouses, four grandsons, and two girlfriends. It was glorious. For another week we have five teenaged grandsons, and then the oldest turns 20. Biggest worry right now is having great grandchildren before my kid has grandchildren. They are only 10 years older than that the oldest grandson, but that gap includes a spouse, along with a BS, MS, PhD, and a real job. Those two girlfriends seem much too ready for kids.
Have we had to sacrifice for the kids, and now grandkids? Sure. The money that went to private K-12 and college kept me (ultimately us) from traveling the world. Sure, that would have been fun. We just wish that we had been able to have more kids.
Children and pets are not an either/or proposition. You can have your children, and then have pets when you can't have children. The complaint is thinking that pets are a substitute for children. I think that there is a bit of selfishism in being childish. I was once that way. If the blogger spouse and I had not children we would be considered upper class based on current income, but with 6 kids we are middle class. My two older kids tease that we should have stopped at 2 so they could enjoy more of the finer things in life. My oldest goes so far as to say stopping at one would have given her all the perks that her solo-kid friends have. This does not take into account all the things blogger spouse and I would have accumulated had we never had kids 22 years ago. 2 incomes for all those years we had just 1, plus the current income, unshared.
I tell you, the tradeoff is poor. I regret not one whit having my children. Worth every penny. I don't expect to have a lonely senior life as we have a strong tradition in our family of family first. My #3 child lives with the blogger spouse father, beneficial for both of them.
As for those who say that some large family will cover for the childless, that is not happening. Too many childless, and large families are derided.
All that said, it is none of my business why anyone would have zero or 12 children. Some people should not have children, it would be nice if others had more. Regardless, love on them and teach them discipline ands respect, and they will return the love and respect later.
This is one of the elephants in the room from which we must be distracted. Look around, you can see the dystopia darkening right in front of your eyes, if you will open them. People— 95% women, honestly— bring their dogs everywhere. I see them in neighborhoods pushing strollers, with little dogs in them. It is a disordered maternal instinct. Look around, you see schools and churches closing, consolidating; but retirement and assisted living facilities going up on every corner. Not to mention doggie spas, doggie day care, doggie hotels. There’s your growth industry.
What this means in about 10 or so years is the pro choice crowd will take their logic to end of life issues, and normalize euthanasia, because illness and issues associated with aging will be too difficult and painful to confront on one’s own. Like abortion, most people will have become so desensitized to it, it will cease to be a moral issue. Once Euthanasia is destigmatized, normalized, it will cease being a « choice » and become a « duty ». The culture of death will dominate. Of course, I hope I’m wrong. Look around, the robust young families having more than two children are all over my parish. This is a new phenomenon . They own the future, if they can survive their dhimmitude in our fanatical secularist society.
Over the years I'd read Philip Roth dutifully, not enthusiastically, and didn't understand the widespread affection for him. To me, something was missing. Not till I read the NYT review of his Lindbergh alternate-history novel did I learn something I probably should've known already: He was childless.
That immediately struck me as what his writing lacked for me--that piece of humanity, however great or small, you suddenly acquire as a parent.
So I disagree with the pope that not having kids "takes some of our humanity away." I'd say that it prevents you from acquiring "some" humanity.
The problem with the religious view of having children it's often a 'no matter what' proposition. Have a health issue that makes childbearing difficult, if not downright dangerous for the mother? Tough just do it anyway and trust in god's will. Can't meet any men you'd consider decent father material? Suck it up, settle for whatever guy will have you - god will provide. Infertility getting in the way? Do spend yourself into bankruptcy trying to fix that - god will rain down money from heaven at the right moment. Don't *think at all* about it AT ALL.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the anti-Catholic venom that exists in this world anymore.
File under Things That Make You Say " ... Ahem ..."
Frank never talks about his own kids.
I guess they were a disappointment.
Not having children, he said, “takes some of our humanity away.”
What does abortion do to you?
"...comes to old age in solitude, with the bitterness of loneliness."
This is often the case with or without having had children. Solitude isn't really all that bad. In fact, I have a recurring fantasy of hiking to some remote location, if I'm lucky enough to have the strength to do so when death is approaching, to die without the pain (and absurd expense) of medical interventions and potentially annoying relatives. This is what my cat "Marty" did, just said goodbye to everyone and then walked off into the forest never to be seen again.
The government and the media aren't going to try to teach my cat to disrespect everything I value.
(He does that on his own, but at least I know it's his own choice.)
Not having children, he said, “takes some of our humanity away.”
What does abortion do to you?
Other than the rare edge case, and the less rare, but few and far betwen Her Choice, the Pro-Choice religion denies a woman and man's dignity and agency, reduces human life to a negotiable commodity, and a life aborted for social, redistributive, and fair weather causes. Demos-cracy is aborted at the Twilight Fringe.
the pro choice crowd will take their logic to end of life issues, and normalize euthanasia
Planned parent/hood in Michigan, New York, and several Democrat jurisdictions, presumably to relieve nonviable "burdens". One-child, selective-child or one-child delegated, and granny, too, a progressive path and grade.
"unintended irony"
It wasn't unintended. I was just avoiding adding extra lines of obviousness. I did say if they keep their vows. Obviously, there are those who don't keep their vows and we could go down that road
>tim maguire said...
Our number one responsibility as citizens is to raise the next generation of citizens.<
Where can I find this precept authoritatively stated? And who is that authority?
For whatever reason, anything related to the Roman Catholic Church seems to bring out all of the religious bigots on this forum (and elsewhere).
This deserves repeating.
How do they justify cloistered priests, nuns, and monks?
Their vocation is prayer -- including praying for folks like you.
>>Could you imagine if a high profile democrat publicly stated that women should get married and have children?
Jimmy Carter once said that people should stop shacking up and get married. The "sophisticated" left tore into him.
"Such ignorant arrogance! You don't know squat about the depth of mature, worldly-wise, love and sacrifice-experienced, childless people."
The only childless people I have met who meet this description were Catholic priests and nuns, and people who desperately wished they could have children but could not.
Such arrogance, Ice Nine. Tsk tsk.
If the Pope really believes this, he should immediately end the celibacy requirement for priests. They should be leading their parishes by example, by have many children.
I might go further, and deny ordination to anyone who has not yet married and fathered a child. I would also admit women to the priesthood, so I am not a conventional Catholic.
Sigh. This betrays a complete ignorance and misunderstanding of what you are commenting about.
> TheOne Who Is Not Obeyed said...
"Such ignorant arrogance! You don't know squat about the depth of mature, worldly-wise, love and sacrifice-experienced, childless people."
The only childless people I have met who meet this description were Catholic priests and nuns, and people who desperately wished they could have children but could not.<
You should get around a little more.
The only people I want treated like fascists that are incompatible with a free society are fascists that are incompatible with a free society.
And exactly who gets decide who is a fascist?
For those who value having children, having children is selfish. For those who do not value having children, NOT having children is selfish. I fully support both forms of selfishness, and recognize that different people can reasonably have different values. There is no "intrinsic" value to having children - it depends on a complex of individual circumstances.
Being true to one's rationally derived values is the key to happiness. It is selfish to pursue one's happiness. And, we have an absolute right to do so. And, there is no need to qualify this with the usual "as long as you don't infringe others' self-same right" - that is included in the concept of "rational".
So, the Pope is (hopefully) right - (for some people) not having kids is selfish. Dog bless them, I say!
I'm with El Popelo on this one.
I’m amazed at the virulent anti-Catholicism in some of these comments. A major theme in most Catholic theology is the example and power of the Holy Family, as an exemplar of love, sacrifice and devotion. Mary, Joseph, and Jesus represent the highest forms of love.
Related to this is the idea that strong, healthy families are the basic foundation of healthy societies. Its not accidental that radical leftists often try to destroy the nuclear family in the early stages of their revolutions. The Bolsheviks did this; the CCP did this In part with their one child policy, and the American left has been attacking the traditional family for years. While I am not a fan of the current marxist pope, I do think he makes a good point about pet worship. Having children and pets are not mutually exclusive activities. You can have both. I was a fan of Pope Benedict, however.
I was Catholic, am now Episcopalian (Anglo-Catholic, in truth) for husband reasons. My husband wasn't sure he wanted kids when we got married, but I always knew I did, without any deep thought about why. When we were married, apparently I told him I'd be having a child by the time I was 30 "with or without him" - as I said, apparently I did this out loud, as he quotes it frequently, though I don't remember saying it. Thankfully he decided to take the risk that staying with me would be worth it, and we ended up with 3 kids. We both agree that if we'd started earlier, we'd have 4. Maybe 5.
And now we're staring down the barrel of the empty nest - not sure what happens next. But these 25 years have been the biggest life I can imagine wanting - filled with joy, yes, but also such anxiety, frustration, anger, sadness, helplessness... the joy coming out on top, so far. I talk with my grown kids, I watch them interact with one another and with the world, and I am overwhelmed with amazement that these people, these gorgeous sunbursts of life, came from two people shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Why not?"
Heh..."And now we're staring down the barrel of the empty nest." Nice mixed metaphor there, Jamie!
I’m glad I have Faith in more than just myself. Faith is what allows one to keep trying after losses- or to have many children regardless the circumstances × they are born into… the concept of control doesn’t lie w/self- but is in God’s hands.
Trust.
Having kids and raising them to be happy, healthy, productive and sane is the only unalloyed good I have accomplished in my entire life.
Not having children, he said, “takes some of our humanity away.”
Takes all of humanity away.
Follow the science. We have only one true purpose. Reproduce. Same for all living things. Reproduce itself.
I've done both. By far the most fulfilling is having children and the most fun is having grandchildren.
Is it Anti Catholic to say that this Pope is a dick?
Freder Frederson said...
The only people I want treated like fascists that are incompatible with a free society are fascists that are incompatible with a free society.
And exactly who gets decide who is a fascist?
If you want to repeal the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments or deny your political opponents their protection you are a fascist.
The who doesn't matter.
You are a fascist Freder.
Roger Zimmerman: you do a great dishonor by reducing the childless to dishonor.
That's all you deserve.
I didn't realize how much purpose your life could have until we had our kids. We have three, and in hindsight should have had more.
But people who know they do not want kids - should not have kids. Everyone is better off that way.
Roger Zimmerman said...
There is no "intrinsic" value to having children - it depends on a complex of individual circumstances.
Your social security and medicare benefits should be explicitly tied and multiplied by how many kids you raised to adulthood and who contribute to society.
Bit odd coming from a 'pope', but if I'd started before 35 I'd happily have had more than 3 kids. Maybe some of these people, if they really are selfish and not merely trapped in some cozy why act now inertia, are doing their would-have-been children a favor.
In South Korea, a man is not considered an adult until he has fathered children, especially a son. When my first grandson was born, my Korean office mates came into my office as a group and all bowed down to me and called me haup odishee--high uncle/father.
My deepest regret in life is that I never had children.
My retirement plans are to move to a rural college town, buy a condo near the university, get a meal plan at the university, and then enroll in any class that looks fun to me. I plan on staying involved by arguing with professors and students the rest of my life.
Blogger Gahrie said...
My deepest regret in life is that I never had children.
My retirement plans are to move to a rural college town, buy a condo near the university, get a meal plan at the university, and then enroll in any class that looks fun to me. I plan on staying involved by arguing with professors and students the rest of my life.
Dear God, as I was reading this, I thought you were going to say "get some coed up the duff"... .
I was sure that I never wanted children, and terrified when I found out I was to be a father. I now have two teen aged boys and can't even imagine how pointless my life might have been without them. I wish I had a few more.
If you want to repeal the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments or deny your political opponents their protection you are a fascist.
Do you have to want to repeal all these amendments to be a fascist or some of them. And what about the three you skipped? You don't care if the army knocks on your door and says, "get out, we need your house as a barracks "?
For the record, I only have problems with the 2nd and the 10th. Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, the second amendment is there so states can put down slave revolts and protect citizens from Indian attacks, neither of which is a problem in the 21st century. Never liked the tenth because the wording is so vague.
Ice Nine said:
">Bitter Clinger said...
It is unlikely that people who are not parents can understand depth of love, the willingness to sacrifice that a parent feels for their child.<
Such ignorant arrogance! You don't know squat about the depth of mature, worldly-wise, love and sacrifice-experienced, childless people."
It is not arrogance. If you have never had a child you can not truly understand the love of a parent for his child. I have been both a childless adult and now a parent. I have experienced both states. I am not ignorant of being childless and felt love for people while I was childless. But now as a parent I can see that the love for a child is different. How can anyone who has not had a child, who truly is ignorant of parental love, claim that I am the ignorant one?
Ice Nine said:
"I've heard this "selfishness" claim many times over the years in regard to those who have chosen to not have children. It is claim made by ignorant people who do not know the meaning of the word they are using. Though I would have thought it common knowledge, virtually every dictionary specifies two conditions for "selfishness": 1) a concern for one's own welfare or advantage 2) *at the expense of or in disregard of others*.
Can anyone tell me: At whose expense or in disregard of whom, exactly, falls the decision to not procreate? If you can't tell me that, be sure to never use that hackneyed "selfish" nonsense in regard to childless people."
Who suffers from your decision not to have children? All of humanity. There is no future human society, no future civilization without children. This is a classic case of concentrated benefit and diffuse cost. You get all the benefit of not having children while everyone else pays the cost.
When you are old and relying on the help of other, younger people to take care of you, you will be free-riding on the sacrifices made by those people's parents.
farmgirl said:
"Benedict was our last Pope- Francis is our current Pope."
Thank you for the correction. I must have a mental block against calling the commie currently in charge of the Vatican "Pope."
Bender said:
"It is unlikely that people who are not parents can understand depth of love, the willingness to sacrifice that a parent feels for their child.
Jesus didn't have children. And yet, He is the fullness of love. And He knows something of willingness to sacrifice. You may want to rethink your argument."
You're arguing that I'm wrong because Jesus, who is part of the Holy Trinity, is the fullness of love? What does that have to do with a human who is not part of the Holy Trinity and what a human is able to know? You might want to rethink your argument.
Furthermore, you may want to brush up on reading comprehension. In particular study what the word "unlikely" means in the context of the sentence I wrote.
>Blogger Bitter Clinger said...
There is no future human society, no future civilization without children. <
Gee, no kidding? I didn't ask about a "future civilization without children." That is not what "my" decision, or any individual's decision, or any group of individuals' decision to not have children produces.
>Who suffers from your decision not to have children? All of humanity.<
Nonsense, most people reproduce.
The most important and rewarding task in life is learning to love--that means entering into relationships with other persons in a way that emphasizes their good. Love and selfishness are incompatible.
Having children does not guarantee learning to love other persons; not having children does not block learning to love other persons.
The Catholic position is that engaging in sexual reproduction through copulation is part of married love and married love means giving one's self fully and completely to one's spouse, including one's fertility. Thus, contraception is a diminution of married love.
Having children usually shocks one into loving, if only because the critters are so appealing--I want their good and so wind up loving them in spite of their overwhelming neediness. It is not the only opportunity to practice love. Celibacy does not block one from loving other persons.
Choosing to use pets for emotional support instead of having children when married is a form of selfishness (that is, the opposite of love) since it means withholding married love from one's spouse. Having pets for emotional support is great, just not as a substitute for married love in a marriage.
Ice Nine said:
">Blogger Bitter Clinger said...
There is no future human society, no future civilization without children. <
Gee, no kidding? I didn't ask about a "future civilization without children." That is not what "my" decision, or any individual's decision, or any group of individuals' decision to not have children produces.
>Who suffers from your decision not to have children? All of humanity.<
Nonsense, most people reproduce."
You asked "Can anyone tell me: At whose expense or in disregard of whom, exactly, falls the decision to not procreate? If you can't tell me that, be sure to never use that hackneyed "selfish" nonsense in regard to childless people."
Are you just trolling now or are you really this dense? Most people pay their income taxes so what's the harm if you choose not to pay? The question should answer itself, but I'll spell it out for you - everyone else has to pay a little more in taxes because you chose not to pay.
When you go to the doctor, someone sacrificed to raise that doctor and nurse and receptionist. You get all the benefit of going to the doctor and did nothing to provide for the future members of society who will also need access to a doctor.
Let's play a little what if game. What if everyone chose not to have children? Who is going to wipe your a** when you're in the nursing home? But you say "Nonsense. Most people reproduce." That's a deflection because you know the answer refutes your argument. Somebody has to make the sacrifice to raise children or there will be no one to feed you and care for you when you can't do it yourself. Your argument is basically "So what if I don't contribute. Enough people will that it won't matter." In other words, you are admitting your selfishness and trying to change the argument to whether your selfishness really matters.
Maybe go back and read the book "The Little Red Hen." You're like the cat, the pig, and the rat. Happy to partake in the bounty, but unwilling to contribute to it. Unfortunately, in America we allow the cat, pig, and rat to eat without penalty.
https://americanliterature.com/childrens-stories/the-little-red-hen
I pay school taxes. I stay very involved in the state school board and education committees and state syllabi. Pro bono. More than the vast majority of parents. That's OK. Just don't ignorantly judge me.
In contrast, the people who pay no or few taxes are overwhelmingly the ones who have much higher rates of childbirth and are a huge intergenerational drain on our government and taxes.
The first five minutes of Idiocracy explains this.
Freder,
Your ridiculous fantasy view of the 2nd deserves nothing but contempt.
As for your take on the 10th, you really need to sue all of your reading and English teachers for malpractice.
Post a Comment