The Feminist Shaming of Fertility
February 9, 2012
Ashley Crouch
In light of recent controversies over Planned Parenthood, it is helpful to have a book that illuminates the organization’s motivating ideology. In the recently released Women, Sex, and the Church: a Case for Catholic Teaching, Angela Franks lays out how self-described “women’s health groups” view a woman’s fertility fundamentally as a hindrance, a burden, a disease to be eradicated. This much, perhaps, is already well known. What Franks adds to the discussion is the extraordinary way that these groups demonize women who fail to adopt their view of fertility.
In 1920, Margaret Sanger authored a book entitled Women and the New Race the opening line of which states: “The most far-reaching social development of modern times is the revolt of women against sex servitude. This ‘sex servitude’ is the biological slavery of women to their reproductive systems.” Fertility came to be viewed as biological slavery rather than a natural human capacity, and this new view ushered in radical cultural change, both good and bad.
We cannot overlook the immense gains that have been made by women. Over the past century, the role of women has transitioned away from the home and into the workplace. Women have made advances in the areas of education, social change, careers, and influence. With a woman’s fertility under her personal control, she was no longer hindered from professional advances. She was now free to pursue her own career interests and (sexual interests) without having to worry about a baby. As laudable as these results were, they stemmed from a lie about sexuality that, unsurprisingly, also bore bad fruit. The imperative of population control became an excuse for abortion, eugenics, forced sterilizations, and, of course, contraception.
Women became the scapegoats for a host of social ills. “Sanger place[d] the blame for female oppression squarely on . . . women themselves,” Franks writes. Women were blamed for problems such as out-of-wedlock births, overpopulation, and even their longstanding subservience to men. Insofar as their fertility enslaved women as individuals, it also was a burden on society at large. Suddenly, women owed society a huge debt: “Sanger thought women had a ‘duty’ to use contraception. Through birth control . . . women could free themselves from ‘sex slavery’ and prevent society from having to bear the burdens of their children. They owe it to society.”
Franks points out the irony of taking a pill to stop a perfectly operating biological process.
According to the 2010 Vital and Health Statistics, 62 percent of women are on contraceptives. This widespread use is socially reinforced by advertising messages and widely promoted notions of women’s health that denigrate the value of a woman’s fertility. Such messages put a woman “at war with herself,” Franks writes, “Contraception must be the only case in which a person takes a pill solely in order to thwart the natural purpose of a bodily system, all in the name of ‘health.’”
The contraceptive culture is now the status quo, but it doesn’t have to remain this way. In her Essays on Woman, Edith Stein says that a woman’s primary vocation is two-fold: as a spouse and mother. A woman may wear many hats, but her role as a mother retains a special importance. While being made in and for themselves as personal subjects, Mulieris Dignitatem explains that “motherhood is linked to the personal structure of the woman.” Those who are unmarried or infertile can participate in the call of motherhood by developing in themselves an open and loving heart in which others may rest and find peace.
In order for this openness of heart, however, women must discontinue manipulating their bodies and viewing it as dysfunctional. A woman who has long been attempting to control and manipulate herself will likely bring the same mindset into relationships with others. Instead, they must rediscover the knowledge that one of the distinctive characteristics of femininity lies in the unique ability to cooperate in bringing the gift of new life into being.
Franks explains that by returning to a more cohesive and balanced understanding of the proper role and value of fertility, it will be possible for a woman to better love herself and others. No longer will the culture effectively be such a hostile environment for a woman; it will be one in which she feels more at ease with accepting herself as fundamentally good, thereby authentically free: “The reality is that we human beings are called to greatness. We are made in the image of God, made to know and love him and each other in a love without limit... This kind of love—a no-holds-barred, self-giving, God-trusting love—is an arduous adventure. It is not ‘safe.’ But it is the only kind of love that is worthy of the dignity of men and women. . . . It is the only kind that will make us truly happy.”
Ashley Crouch is Director of Outreach and Programs at the Love and Fidelity Network.
RESOURCES
Erika Bachiochi, Women, Sex, and the Church: A Case for Catholic Teaching
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
2.9.2012 | 8:29am
bill bannon says:
If you read long comboxes on Catholic NFP matters though, you run into accounts of Catholics at times shaming each other in both directions...too few children or too many children...depending on which group is dominant in a small town. Then a providentialist will pop up in a combox to shame an NFP person for not having ten children instead of seven. The last Pope who came from a large family was John XXIII...13 children. Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI all were from three child families. In some Catholic large family areas, their parents would have faced whispers of "why so few".
The whole discussion is very Western though and presumes affluence or governmental safety nets. Yesterday's NY Times had the story of an Afghan family that lost six children to death from disease and lost two others to excessive cold with one child out of 9 remaining to the parents. The Phillipines and Brazil because of large families within the poverty context have street waif problems that therefore
make them rank 4th and 2nd respectively in child sex trafficing...despite 4 centuries
of largely Catholic culture.
The whole discussion is very Western though and presumes affluence or governmental safety nets. Yesterday's NY Times had the story of an Afghan family that lost six children to death from disease and lost two others to excessive cold with one child out of 9 remaining to the parents. The Phillipines and Brazil because of large families within the poverty context have street waif problems that therefore
make them rank 4th and 2nd respectively in child sex trafficing...despite 4 centuries
of largely Catholic culture.
2.9.2012 | 9:55am
Gregory says:
Franks writes, “Contraception must be the only case in which a person takes a pill solely in order to thwart the natural purpose of a bodily system, all in the name of ‘health.’”
This is false. Think of the diet pill Alli, which thwarts the natural digestive process. The birth control pill is not the only place where we thwart the natural, well-ordered operation of the human body.
This is false. Think of the diet pill Alli, which thwarts the natural digestive process. The birth control pill is not the only place where we thwart the natural, well-ordered operation of the human body.
2.9.2012 | 10:16am
Macmom10 says:
JimSpain, the point is that people, male and female, were meant to live in community and be of service to each other. As adults, we best use our physical, emotional, and spiritual maturity to help others. Thats why we have jobs. Thats why we raise children. Thats why we participate in civic organizations. Parenting is a great metaphor for adulthood. Parents GIVE, and children TAKE. Thats the design of it, and its natural that adults, who have the ability to caretake, do so for those who need help.
Your view of fatherhood as aggressive is way off base. Consider more the "Fatherhood of God" and what that entails and you will be more on track to discover what men are called to be for others.
Your view of fatherhood as aggressive is way off base. Consider more the "Fatherhood of God" and what that entails and you will be more on track to discover what men are called to be for others.
2.9.2012 | 11:13am
John says:
Actually contracpetion is not the only case in which a person takes a pill solely in order to thwart the natural purpose of a bodily system, all in the name of ‘health.' Don't forget the diet pills that interfere with digestion. Contraception is every bit as "healthy" as bulimia and other measures people take to eat without being nourished by food. It is tragic that these habits predominate in women.
2.9.2012 | 12:00pm
CKG says:
Point well taken, Ms. Crouch. There is something bizarrely world-denying in our culture's refusal of fertility - as you note, on no other account do we undertake medical intervention in order to keep our bodies from operating in a perfectly healthy manner.
I have had grown adults - married 30-somethings - look at me with blank stares, asking, "What does sex have to do with babies?" As Dave Barry likes to say, I am not making this up. . .
I have had grown adults - married 30-somethings - look at me with blank stares, asking, "What does sex have to do with babies?" As Dave Barry likes to say, I am not making this up. . .
2.9.2012 | 12:34pm
J says:
"Sanger thought women had a ‘duty’ to use contraception. Through birth control . . . women could free themselves from ‘sex slavery’ and prevent society from having to bear the burdens of their children. They owe it to society.”
This is why "pro-choice" is really "pro-a-certain-choice".
This is why Toni Weschler's convincing argument of the importance of fertility awareness from a feminist perspective (similar, though not completely in agreement with Catholic teaching) is ignored.
This is why pro-choice groups oppose Crisis Pregnancy Centers and women's right to know laws. (Should not a true "choice" be an well informed choice?)
This is why "reproductive education" is more about promoting contraceptives than about the biology of reproduction.
This is why so little has been said about modern fertility treatments (IVF, etc.) and how hard they can be on a woman's body.
The recent debates show despite years of efforts for women's equality, many women are still frighteningly ignorant about how their own bodies work and how contraception prevents this. This post takes no position on the morality of contraception, but women should be making an informed choice on whether to use it and what kind to use.
This is why "pro-choice" is really "pro-a-certain-choice".
This is why Toni Weschler's convincing argument of the importance of fertility awareness from a feminist perspective (similar, though not completely in agreement with Catholic teaching) is ignored.
This is why pro-choice groups oppose Crisis Pregnancy Centers and women's right to know laws. (Should not a true "choice" be an well informed choice?)
This is why "reproductive education" is more about promoting contraceptives than about the biology of reproduction.
This is why so little has been said about modern fertility treatments (IVF, etc.) and how hard they can be on a woman's body.
The recent debates show despite years of efforts for women's equality, many women are still frighteningly ignorant about how their own bodies work and how contraception prevents this. This post takes no position on the morality of contraception, but women should be making an informed choice on whether to use it and what kind to use.
2.9.2012 | 1:02pm
David Nickol says:
Not even the Catholic Church believes there is anything wrong with a woman taking control of her own fertility.
2.9.2012 | 1:26pm
Blake says:
JimSpain: Unmarried and infertile men can and do find ways to "be men" within their community - protecting and guarding the vulnerable is just one of many traditionally masculine roles for which men are naturally "wired".
2.9.2012 | 2:07pm
Nancy D. says:
I am reminded of The Agony In The Garden, and Luke 23:28-29
"...for the time will come when they will say, Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed."
"...for the time will come when they will say, Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed."
2.9.2012 | 2:47pm
David Nickol says:
“Contraception must be the only case in which a person takes a pill solely in order to thwart the natural purpose of a bodily system, all in the name of ‘health.’”
Nonsense.
Anyone who has ever used an antiperspirant has thwarted the natural purpose of a bodily system. The same is true of painkillers and anesthesia. Pain is absolutely vital to human existence, but it would be foolish to claim that suppressing it when it is not serving a desirable purpose is an offense against nature. Drinking coffee when you are drowsy is also counteracting a perfectly natural bodily mechanism. Perhaps all those who feel they need a strong cup of coffee should take a nap. Nothing could be more natural than aging, but whatever can be done (within certain parameters, at least) to thwart it or stave it off will be fine with me.
Nonsense.
Anyone who has ever used an antiperspirant has thwarted the natural purpose of a bodily system. The same is true of painkillers and anesthesia. Pain is absolutely vital to human existence, but it would be foolish to claim that suppressing it when it is not serving a desirable purpose is an offense against nature. Drinking coffee when you are drowsy is also counteracting a perfectly natural bodily mechanism. Perhaps all those who feel they need a strong cup of coffee should take a nap. Nothing could be more natural than aging, but whatever can be done (within certain parameters, at least) to thwart it or stave it off will be fine with me.
2.9.2012 | 2:54pm
The Moz says:
In 50 years who will still be around? The people who had children or those who didn't?
2.9.2012 | 2:55pm
Felapton says:
Contraception is not the only medication taken to "thwart the natural purpose of a bodily system." The natural response of the nervous system to injury is pain. Pain-killers are taken to thwart this natural response of the nervous system.
2.9.2012 | 4:14pm
A.M. says:
Willingness to see the light and truth that accepting pain or discomfort as part of the path to unite ourselves even more with The Lord , esp. in His Passion - the trust that He would use all such pain , to turn more hearts to Him - would that be not the antidote , for the fear of accepting new life , with all its challenges ..
Thus , the fear of having to leave behind little ones , when one has to be a working mother , overcome with the comfort of asking even more earnestly for The Lord's uniting presence , for both ..
Any shame in same , united with the courage with which The Lord's Mother cherished the Incarnation ..
Moments of needed self control or lonleiness too , being occasions, to mediate on the Passion again ..
and all such occasions being thus for the flow of the Holy Spirit , into minds and hearts , to strenghten , help to forgive ..
Thus , whatever stage one is in life can become fruitful - even for the conversion of the very feminists , who seem to be tools for the enemy of all life !
Thus , the fear of having to leave behind little ones , when one has to be a working mother , overcome with the comfort of asking even more earnestly for The Lord's uniting presence , for both ..
Any shame in same , united with the courage with which The Lord's Mother cherished the Incarnation ..
Moments of needed self control or lonleiness too , being occasions, to mediate on the Passion again ..
and all such occasions being thus for the flow of the Holy Spirit , into minds and hearts , to strenghten , help to forgive ..
Thus , whatever stage one is in life can become fruitful - even for the conversion of the very feminists , who seem to be tools for the enemy of all life !
2.9.2012 | 4:18pm
SMM says:
Who is going to visit you when you are sick, disabled, or old, and possibly in a nursing home? As someone who worked several years in nursing homes, I can tell you that family members visit far less than they should, and friends are even more rare. I feel sorry for people with few or no children. Who will visit them? Of course, this is NOT a reason to have children, but it IS one of the many benefits.
2.9.2012 | 6:03pm
RS says:
I agree with those pointing out that most Americans use medications and devices to disrupt natural bodily processes about daily. I'll add alarm clocks to the list that already includes pain killers, antiperspirant, and caffeine. [I think diet pills are more like surgery to remove cancer, but the sentiment still holds.]
I would have liked more explication above about what "embracing fertility" means. It's very hard for me to think of hormonal contraceptives as just (temporary) fertility-wreckers, because they're not. They also treat acne, dysmenorrhea, amenorrhea, endometriosis, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and poly-cystic ovarian syndrome. They prevent certain cancers. I guess that's to say they never are taken "solely in order to thwart the natural purpose of a bodily system." They almost always provide health benefits (or at least quotidian convenience) apart from contraception. They're like my latte, which I drink not just for the caffeine from the espresso, but also for the nutrition from the steamed milk.
Given this contemporary medical reality, I get frustrated whenever only the moral issue of contraception is addressed. It always comes across to me as dismissive of some serious medical concerns and often significant unpleasantries involved in being a fertile woman. It sounds like I should be so happy I might be able to have a baby some day, I should merrily endure the evils that come before.
I would have liked more explication above about what "embracing fertility" means. It's very hard for me to think of hormonal contraceptives as just (temporary) fertility-wreckers, because they're not. They also treat acne, dysmenorrhea, amenorrhea, endometriosis, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and poly-cystic ovarian syndrome. They prevent certain cancers. I guess that's to say they never are taken "solely in order to thwart the natural purpose of a bodily system." They almost always provide health benefits (or at least quotidian convenience) apart from contraception. They're like my latte, which I drink not just for the caffeine from the espresso, but also for the nutrition from the steamed milk.
Given this contemporary medical reality, I get frustrated whenever only the moral issue of contraception is addressed. It always comes across to me as dismissive of some serious medical concerns and often significant unpleasantries involved in being a fertile woman. It sounds like I should be so happy I might be able to have a baby some day, I should merrily endure the evils that come before.
2.9.2012 | 6:06pm
LUKE1732 says:
David Nickol says:
Not even the Catholic Church believes there is anything wrong with a woman taking control of her own fertility.
The Catholic Rite of Marriage says:
Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?
Not even the Catholic Church believes there is anything wrong with a woman taking control of her own fertility.
The Catholic Rite of Marriage says:
Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?
2.9.2012 | 6:09pm
LUKE1732 says:
Wentham says:
Priests refuse fertility too. Are they bad?
They don't refuse it. They sacrifice it for the good of the church. Men who get vasectomies refuse fertility. Priest don't get vasectomies.
Priests refuse fertility too. Are they bad?
They don't refuse it. They sacrifice it for the good of the church. Men who get vasectomies refuse fertility. Priest don't get vasectomies.
2.9.2012 | 6:13pm
LUKE1732 says:
Felapton says:
The natural response of the nervous system to injury is pain. Pain-killers are taken to thwart this natural response of the nervous system.
Don't confuse discomfort with dysfunction. Without pain how would you know you need medical attention - to treat the root cause, not the pain.
The natural response of the nervous system to injury is pain. Pain-killers are taken to thwart this natural response of the nervous system.
Don't confuse discomfort with dysfunction. Without pain how would you know you need medical attention - to treat the root cause, not the pain.
2.9.2012 | 7:08pm
Karen says:
Edith Stein was neither wife nor mother, but she dooms every other woman to only those two things. I am married and I have two much beloved sons, but to say that I am ONLY a mother and that "wife" is more than a tiny part of my identity is insulting. Women want to exercise our own authority, be creative, vigorous, and autonomous. The writer, and all the people she quotes, believe that anyone who wants to use a brain should have been born with a penis, and that women are nothing more than uteruses with mops attached.
2.9.2012 | 7:53pm
LUKE1732 says:
"They also treat acne, dysmenorrhea, amenorrhea, endometriosis, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and poly-cystic ovarian syndrome."
I don't have any statistics at hand, but I suspect this is the "rape and incest" argument transferred from abortion to contraception.
Here is one resource to explore valid medical concerns:
http://www.all.org/nav/index/heading/OQ/cat/Mzc/id/NjgyMg/
I don't have any statistics at hand, but I suspect this is the "rape and incest" argument transferred from abortion to contraception.
Here is one resource to explore valid medical concerns:
http://www.all.org/nav/index/heading/OQ/cat/Mzc/id/NjgyMg/
2.9.2012 | 8:37pm
Clare says:
The fact that Edith Stein was neither wife nor mother should clue Karen in to her oversimplification and misreading of Stein's thought. Whatever the concrete and varied paths a woman takes, her fertility and capacity for life is part of the structure of her person. How a woman exercises or does not exercise that capacity is not particularly relevant to this discussion; what is relevant is that the deliberate sterilization or suppression of that capacity is an assault on a woman's personhood (as it would be for a man.) Woman should and must take control of their fertility. However, if they can only do so by by attacking and manipulating it, can only move in the public sphere and compete with men by denying part of their own womanhood, then we are far from equality. We have only achieved a more comfortable misogyny.
2.9.2012 | 8:41pm
Gil says:
David Nickol, You state "Not even the Catholic Church believes there is anything wrong with a woman taking control of her own fertility."
True, but the Church is opposed to assaulting the body in the process, and it encourages it for the spacing of children, not denying them, not in any way against (contra) children.
True, but the Church is opposed to assaulting the body in the process, and it encourages it for the spacing of children, not denying them, not in any way against (contra) children.
2.9.2012 | 11:06pm
Barefoot Momma says:
Reading RS comment might make one think that hormonal birthcontrol is truly the miracle pill pharmaceutical posters make it out to be. What about negative side affects? Are there truly none? While it may lower the chances of ovarian cancer, it just might increase the chance of breastcancer. It also has a negative affect on the cervix. Instead of blindly prescribing birthcontrol pills, doctors could try to actually find and treat the causes of the various "female" problems we seem to be experiencing at such a high rate. And honestly, are there truly no other ways to treat acne?
Embracing my fertlity means that I know my body - it is wonderfully made! This intimate knowledge led to my recognition of a problem months before an ultrasound showed an ovarian cyst. Further, this knowledge helped my husband and me to actively participate in God's plan for our family - we were co-creators with the Father! Truly, His yes was always an amazing gift! Seriously, RS, you deserve better than contraception.
Embracing my fertlity means that I know my body - it is wonderfully made! This intimate knowledge led to my recognition of a problem months before an ultrasound showed an ovarian cyst. Further, this knowledge helped my husband and me to actively participate in God's plan for our family - we were co-creators with the Father! Truly, His yes was always an amazing gift! Seriously, RS, you deserve better than contraception.
2.9.2012 | 11:48pm
BertO says:
The first two lines of the book are actually, "THE MOST far-reaching social development of modern times is the revolt of woman against sex servitude. The most important force in the remaking of the world is a free motherhood. Beside this force, the elaborate international programmes of modern statesmen are weak and superficial. "
From where does, "This ‘sex servitude’ is the biological slavery of women to their reproductive systems," come?
From where does, "This ‘sex servitude’ is the biological slavery of women to their reproductive systems," come?
2.10.2012 | 2:59am
Rick says:
@John: "Actually contracpetion is not the only case in which a person takes a pill solely in order to thwart the natural purpose of a bodily system, all in the name of ‘health.' Don't forget the diet pills that interfere with digestion."
Yes, and don't forget the pills we take to lower a fever when we are sick. We feel more comfortable with the fever lowered, but we have frustrated a perfectly working bodily system that requires an elevated body temperature to fight an infection. Lowering the fever actually slows down our recovery from the disease.
Yes, and don't forget the pills we take to lower a fever when we are sick. We feel more comfortable with the fever lowered, but we have frustrated a perfectly working bodily system that requires an elevated body temperature to fight an infection. Lowering the fever actually slows down our recovery from the disease.
2.10.2012 | 6:39am
Wentham says:
Luke 1723:
You're just playing semantic word games. The fact is, priests are often fertile ... but they choose not to marry, and have children. For the sake of a larger good.
And likewise? Many lay, secular persons, choose not to have children; in order to concentrate on their jobs, doing social work, and so forth.
The fact is, the very core of Catholic Tradition allows us all to ignore our fertility, making babies. And to turn to higher pursuits.
You're just playing semantic word games. The fact is, priests are often fertile ... but they choose not to marry, and have children. For the sake of a larger good.
And likewise? Many lay, secular persons, choose not to have children; in order to concentrate on their jobs, doing social work, and so forth.
The fact is, the very core of Catholic Tradition allows us all to ignore our fertility, making babies. And to turn to higher pursuits.
2.10.2012 | 10:48am
Barefoot Momma says:
Ah diet pills - great analogy. People take them because they judge they have no self-control over their appetite. They know that this isn't the best or healthiest way to deal with the issue, but it might work for now and hopefully the worst side effects won't apply to them.
2.10.2012 | 11:24am
Amity Harrington says:
While I agree with most of what you say, I think there are two important points to call attention two. I do not think that women who use contreprection will automatically try to apply a manipulative and self serving view to their relationship. That view demonizes women who use contraception as much as the otherside demonizes women who practice natural family planning.
As the only catholic in my family of sisters (convert), and having been blessed two children (and a third coming soon), I have felt the disapproval of others and it hurts. The lure of contraception is not control over my body, but a way to do what is acceptable in society's eyes: (work full time, be a mother to one or two children only who should be spaced three years apart and find fulfillment in both and never be stressed or question this system). So the choice of contraception is not hard as I will do what the Church teaches and what my heart tells me is right, but the judgement and comments of others (even fellow Catholics) is hard.
The second thing is that not every woman is called to motherhood. We don't all have nurturing hearts where others can find peace and rest (as this is most like the heart of the most blessed Mother). And just because a woman doesn't fit this ideal doesn't make her any less of a woman. We are all created with unique charisims, some of us have hearts of motherly love and some of us have hearts of academic passion and some of us have hearts that are broken and can only be filled by the live of Christ.
As the only catholic in my family of sisters (convert), and having been blessed two children (and a third coming soon), I have felt the disapproval of others and it hurts. The lure of contraception is not control over my body, but a way to do what is acceptable in society's eyes: (work full time, be a mother to one or two children only who should be spaced three years apart and find fulfillment in both and never be stressed or question this system). So the choice of contraception is not hard as I will do what the Church teaches and what my heart tells me is right, but the judgement and comments of others (even fellow Catholics) is hard.
The second thing is that not every woman is called to motherhood. We don't all have nurturing hearts where others can find peace and rest (as this is most like the heart of the most blessed Mother). And just because a woman doesn't fit this ideal doesn't make her any less of a woman. We are all created with unique charisims, some of us have hearts of motherly love and some of us have hearts of academic passion and some of us have hearts that are broken and can only be filled by the live of Christ.
2.10.2012 | 11:46am
Michael P says:
I once heard that the pill was actually going to be made for men. However as soon as they found it caused some "shrinkage" they stopped that. I am not drawing any conclusion just find it interesting that as soon as there was the slightest health risk for men they did an about face and focused solely on the woman's fertility. Surprise, surprise the pill is SOOOOOOO healthy for women's bodies but nothing. Ideologies are hard to change I guess.
2.10.2012 | 11:58am
LUKE1732 says:
Wentham,
If someone is called to childlessness, fine, as long as they don't cripple or destroy their fertility, permanently or temporarily, by knife or chemical or barrier.
I think you're overselling "the very core of Catholic Tradition" and ignoring the first thing God said to mankind: be fruitful and multiply.
God made all the angels in an instant. He delegated the job of populating his Kingdom with humans to us. That's a calling not to be taken lightly.
If someone is called to childlessness, fine, as long as they don't cripple or destroy their fertility, permanently or temporarily, by knife or chemical or barrier.
I think you're overselling "the very core of Catholic Tradition" and ignoring the first thing God said to mankind: be fruitful and multiply.
God made all the angels in an instant. He delegated the job of populating his Kingdom with humans to us. That's a calling not to be taken lightly.
2.10.2012 | 3:02pm
Wooster says:
Whoah, Nellie. I don't accept any premise about female fertility which does not include alongside it, male responsibility for family support. I wonder if the author considered that the very reason so many women turn to contraception is the daily reminder that she has a child - an overgrown, immature, irresponsible lout who is incapable of demonstrating that he can provide for wife, children or even himself? And, I hope no one responds that women did this. They did not. I reject that women asserting themselves and developing their potential (their God-given potential) had as a consequence men ceasing to become the best human beings they could be. Women simply used what was available to prevent themselves from being abandoned + impoverished + saddled with 1-20 children and at the mercy of the government or charity.
You want more "fertile" women? Better start raising men, not man-boys.
You want more "fertile" women? Better start raising men, not man-boys.
2.10.2012 | 5:42pm
Paige says:
Even though I grew up Catholic, I never really got the sense of "sex slavery" until getting into college. In my family, even on both sides (my Dad's being Catholic and my Mom's is mostly Methodist) in my parent's generation no one has more than 4 kids. Honestly, it's too bad that in the Christian society of the world, you are being measured by how many kids you produce. My mom got very sick giving birth to me and my younger sister and while I think it would be really cool having another sibling (like a brother) she would probably die. So I guess the real question is when will all the judgement stop? If you have the grace to have 10 kids, that's awesome! But let's not forget that smaller families are blessings too. We should rejoice in all forms of life-givingness (yes I made that up). From good ol' Dr. Seuss "A person's a person no matter how small" families included.
2.11.2012 | 6:43pm
zmayhem says:
Barefoot Momma:
What about negative side affects? Are there truly none? While it may lower the chances of ovarian cancer, it just might increase the chance of breastcancer.
It's been reasonable in the past, maybe as recently as 5-10 years ago, to say that it just might, but not any more. The overwhelming medical and scientific consensus (and by medical and scientific, I mean the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Cancer Institute, and a number of their analogs in the UK, as well as a huge body of clinical and lab researchers in reproductive sciences, oncology, genetics, epidemiology, and a number of other disciplines in which population study, risk-increasing behaviors and the side and long-term aftereffects of various medications and procedures intersect) is that there is no significant causal link between birth control and breast cancer.
BC use does appear to slightly (very slightly, not to a statistically significant degree) increase breast cancer risk, for about a decade after stopping. Once you pass that decade mark, though, the rates of breast cancer diagnoses between women who have and women who haven't taken hormonal BC are identical. Same thing for cervical cancer increase - it's very slight (the truly decisive risk factor is whether a woman is HPV positive), and the increased risk disappears after a decade of nonuse.
In addition to decreasing the risk of ovarian cancer (5 years of hormonal BC will drop a woman's risk by 50%), it also decreases the risk of endometrial cancer, a benefit that appears to last for many years after discontinuation.
If there's a strong and well-reasoned moral case to be made against hormonal birth control, it should be made in a strong and well-reasoned way, without resorting to scare words based on thoroughly debunked junk science.
What about negative side affects? Are there truly none? While it may lower the chances of ovarian cancer, it just might increase the chance of breastcancer.
It's been reasonable in the past, maybe as recently as 5-10 years ago, to say that it just might, but not any more. The overwhelming medical and scientific consensus (and by medical and scientific, I mean the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Cancer Institute, and a number of their analogs in the UK, as well as a huge body of clinical and lab researchers in reproductive sciences, oncology, genetics, epidemiology, and a number of other disciplines in which population study, risk-increasing behaviors and the side and long-term aftereffects of various medications and procedures intersect) is that there is no significant causal link between birth control and breast cancer.
BC use does appear to slightly (very slightly, not to a statistically significant degree) increase breast cancer risk, for about a decade after stopping. Once you pass that decade mark, though, the rates of breast cancer diagnoses between women who have and women who haven't taken hormonal BC are identical. Same thing for cervical cancer increase - it's very slight (the truly decisive risk factor is whether a woman is HPV positive), and the increased risk disappears after a decade of nonuse.
In addition to decreasing the risk of ovarian cancer (5 years of hormonal BC will drop a woman's risk by 50%), it also decreases the risk of endometrial cancer, a benefit that appears to last for many years after discontinuation.
If there's a strong and well-reasoned moral case to be made against hormonal birth control, it should be made in a strong and well-reasoned way, without resorting to scare words based on thoroughly debunked junk science.
2.14.2012 | 5:07pm
Barefoot Momma says:
Zmayhem - you might want to wade through some of those studies a bit further. The American Cancer Society as well as WHO still rates the hormonal birth control pill as a carcinogen. While the risk is slight, it certainly isn't "junk science," and to blithefully assert that there are nothing but positive benefits to using artificial hormones to interfere with a natural bodily function is not prudent.
2.19.2012 | 12:49pm
Linda C. says:
"Edith Stein was neither wife nor mother, but she dooms every other woman to only those two things."
Why do you think being a wife and mother = "doom"?
Why do you think being a wife and mother = "doom"?
2.23.2012 | 1:19am
cowalker says:
RS says "I agree with those pointing out that most Americans use medications and devices to disrupt natural bodily processes about daily. I'll add alarm clocks to the list that already includes pain killers, antiperspirant, and caffeine. [I think diet pills are more like surgery to remove cancer, but the sentiment still holds.]"
What about all the calorie-less sweeteners? At the same time the RCC was getting righteous about "No sexual pleasure without being open to life" we Americans were introduced to the concept of "Enjoying sweetness without being nourished." After all the first purpose of eating is to feed the body, not to fool it by sucking down a substance that tastes like food but isn't. Not to mention Olestra.
Never a peep from the bishops. I guess it's too much to ask Catholics to control their calories enough to allow them to use sugar in their coffee, or to give it up. The bishops only want to weigh in when it's about sex.
What a bankrupt set of values.
What about all the calorie-less sweeteners? At the same time the RCC was getting righteous about "No sexual pleasure without being open to life" we Americans were introduced to the concept of "Enjoying sweetness without being nourished." After all the first purpose of eating is to feed the body, not to fool it by sucking down a substance that tastes like food but isn't. Not to mention Olestra.
Never a peep from the bishops. I guess it's too much to ask Catholics to control their calories enough to allow them to use sugar in their coffee, or to give it up. The bishops only want to weigh in when it's about sex.
What a bankrupt set of values.
And, mutatis mutandis, unmarried or infertile men can participate in the call of fatherhood by developing in themselves...what? An aggressive and virile personality into which others will wish to subsume their wills?
I'm not mocking; I agree with about 98% of what you say, but I actually wonder if you don't go far enough. Marriage and parenting are fundamental human goods, and unless one is living a life of celibacy in the service of God, why should we not make the admittedly unpopular assertion that someone who is unmarried and/or infertile is missing out on some ideal? Most of us are in one way or another, so it's not like we're placing these people in some sort of underclass.