| Author | |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 7:06pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
Jenn,
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Jenny
Forum Pro
Joined: Dec 20 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 489
|
| Posted: March 16 2006 at 10:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Jenn,
I really enjoyed reading your thoughts & agree 100% (even about the white bread  )
Jenny
__________________
Jenny
Chris' wife and momma of 7. My blog: The Littlest Way--Bible Journaling, Inspiring Bible Quotes, Daily Affirmations, Prayer Journaling & photography
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
momwise
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 28 2005
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
| Posted: March 17 2006 at 9:25am | IP Logged
|
|
|
jenngm67 wrote:
| All these intermingle with one another...but one of the biggest influences would be the modern doctor, Dr. Spock and the introduction of formula! We lost one or two generations in regulating baby's sleeping, eating, lack of bonding...giving formula instead of nursing |
|
|
Jenn,
You posted most everything I could think of. I had totally forgotten about the above point. By the time my mother gave birth to me (1960) the docs were actually saying things like "You can't produce enough milk to nurse her."  Then there's the twilight sleep that was introduced around the same time, which left most of my mother's generation unable to experience or remember their ability to give birth. It became something the doc, not the mother, accomplished. I think this is one of many factors that paved the way for the easy success of Roe vs. Wade, along with the Griswold case in 1964 and Sanger's efforts previous to that.
In the final analysis, there are no factors that can touch low-cost abortion on demand for any reason througout 9 mos. of pregnancy for a reason why people do not want/value children.
__________________
Gwen...wife for 30 years, mom of 7, grandma of 3.....
"If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life." JPII
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
insegnante
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 07 2006
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1143
|
| Posted: April 10 2006 at 9:21pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
This is kind of an old thread and I could only skim the replies, but did anyone mention the cesarean rate (and the low VBAC rate)? While there is no limit per se to the number of cesareans a woman can have (I've read and liked Kimberly Hahn's book!), there will be both physicians' advice, real health concerns/problems, and likely an increase in infertility/miscarriage decreasing the number of babies born to women who have had cesareans. What is the national rate, about 27% of babies born by c/s? VBAC somewhere between 5 and 15% maybe? Can't do the math right now, but that doesn't necessarily mean only 27% of *mothers* have ever had c/s -- maybe it's more?
Theresa
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
momtomany
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 17 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: April 11 2006 at 8:24am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Jenn, you've made so many excellent points!
__________________
Mary Ann in PA
wife to MIchael, mom to Elizabeth, Becca, Tim, Peter, Andrew, Sarah, Matthew, John, Leah and Joseph
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
abcmommy
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 09 2006
Location: Indiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: April 17 2006 at 7:35pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Jen, attachment parenting and breastfeeding rates would be in decline instead of increasing in popularity if it were not for Dr Spock, who revolutionised parenting practices thru out the last century.
I hate seeing dr Spock maligned and I am very sensitive on this issue so pardon me for a tangent.
Spock was so pro child it isnt even funny when his books came out. He was accused of ruining disciplien in homes, of being completely permissive. He was a wonderful influence on today's parents and while conservative and punitive compared to grace based child rearing and Dr Sears, he was the foundation upon which the attachment parenting movement was able to build. If it were not for Spock, who told moms on the FIRST PAGE in the FIRST sentence of his books to "TRUST YOURSELVES bc you know more than you think you do" then Dr Sears and the like wouldnt have been published or possible today.
Child rearing in the early half of the 1900s (when spock's book came out, maybe 1930? 40?) was so very harsh. Mothers were told not to kiss their children. To make them sleep outside in the cold. To avoid picking them up at all. The good old days were NOT so good.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Angie Mc
Board Moderator
Joined: Jan 31 2005
Location: Arizona
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 11400
|
| Posted: April 19 2006 at 12:42pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
abcmommy wrote:
I hate seeing dr Spock maligned and I am very sensitive on this issue so pardon me for a tangent.
|
|
|
We meet again, abc! From the LifeTeen thread...
Angie Mc wrote:
"Tone" is a difficult thing to discern through online communication as I know you all know from experience. The good news is that this board has a history of assuming good intent and a reputation for charitable dialogue.
Because we have this positive history, we are able to tackle topics head-on. So, while we make every effort to be kind to each other as people, we can be very tough on topics. This "tender on the people, tough on the topic" balance is one that we meet most of the time. I especially appreciate the toughness on topics aspect of this list because I have learned so much from the charitable back and forth.
|
|
|
(Here comes the "tender on the people" reminder...) "Maligned" is a strong word and one that doesn't fit here, abc. We are assuming good intent and trying to convey a positive tone as well as acknowledging Jenn's kind and thoughtful (and thorough) sharing...
(Here comes the "tough on the topic" part...)
JennGM wrote:
(7) All these intermingle with one another...but one of the biggest influences would be the modern doctor, Dr. Spock and the introduction of formula! We lost one or two generations in regulating baby's sleeping, eating, lack of bonding...giving formula instead of nursing. That's why there's such a pendulum swing to Attachment parenting. We don't know how to bond with our babies. Some of it comes naturally, but because it's been suppressed for a few generations, our parents and grandparents can't teach us these things. It's an uphill battle! |
|
|
It is true that Dr. Spock supported breastfeeding at a time when most modern doctors where heading down the formula highway. Yet, his name is most decidedly connected with modern doctoring, so I can see where his named could be connected in that way. Some may also connect him with a lack of "regulating baby" as described by Jenn.
abcmommy wrote:
Jen, attachment parenting and breastfeeding rates would be in decline instead of increasing in popularity if it were not for Dr Spock, who revolutionised parenting practices thru out the last century....Spock was so pro child it isnt even funny when his books came out...He was a wonderful influence on today's parents and while conservative and punitive compared to grace based child rearing and Dr Sears, he was the foundation upon which the attachment parenting movement was able to build. If it were not for Spock, who told moms on the FIRST PAGE in the FIRST sentence of his books to "TRUST YOURSELVES bc you know more than you think you do" then Dr Sears and the like wouldnt have been published or possible today.
|
|
|
I think that there can be an argument made for Dr. Spock's connection to positive parenting changes (such as support for breastfeeding and parenting intuition.)
abcmommy wrote:
| He was accused of ruining disciplien in homes, of being completely permissive. |
|
|
There can also be charitable arguments made to Dr. Spock's connection to negative parenting changes and the above accusations continue today. I'm wondering if the fall out has to do with how some people interpreted his ideas. In other words the outcome for some parents was complete permissiveness and children who lacked discipline.
abcmommy wrote:
| Child rearing in the early half of the 1900s (when spock's book came out, maybe 1930? 40?) was so very harsh. Mothers were told not to kiss their children. To make them sleep outside in the cold. To avoid picking them up at all. The good old days were NOT so good. |
|
|
This is what Jenn was getting at as well. The mother/child bond was being undermined in many ways, and, to the best of my understanding, this was the point being connected to "what has changed?"
Love,
__________________
Angie Mc
Maimeo to Henry! Dave's wife, mom to Mrs. Devin+Michael Pope, Aiden 20,Ian 17,John Paul 11,Catherine (heaven 6/07)
About Me
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: April 19 2006 at 1:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Dr. Spock was honored by the American Humanist Association as Humanist of the Year in 1968. Betty Friedan took the honors in '75 and Margaret Sanger was honored in '57.
I'm not thinking that he was a huge advocate for big families or a particular friend of mothers of big families. The humanist perspective is 180 out from what is necessary to mother a large family. The founding mothers of La Leche League (all Catholic mothers of many), who conceived a pro-family, pro-child organization at a Catholic church picnic in Illinois, did far more for moms of many and for parenting in general, in my very biased opinion.
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: April 19 2006 at 1:36pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Thanks, Angie and Elizabeth, for eloquently answering.
BTW, Angie, your PM box is full!
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to  & ds1  '03 & ds2  '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: April 19 2006 at 1:38pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
abcmommy wrote:
| Child rearing in the early half of the 1900s (when spock's book came out, maybe 1930? 40?) was so very harsh. Mothers were told not to kiss their children. To make them sleep outside in the cold. To avoid picking them up at all. The good old days were NOT so good. |
|
|
I don't know much about Dr Spock at all. But my daughter and I were just discussing LM Montgomery's books and from those, it is true that this was the "expert" wisdom of the eearly to late 1900's. It was mentioned in the books because the mom WANTED to pick up her child and cuddle her but was told that was going to spoil the kids.
Some of this comes out a bit in Charlotte Mason's writings too where she's talking about "the old days" when kids were treated severely in order to make them grow up to be tough and strong.
Interesting thread.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
SaraP
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 15 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: April 19 2006 at 8:17pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Quote:
| Child rearing in the early half of the 1900s (when spock's book came out, maybe 1930? 40?) was so very harsh. Mothers were told not to kiss their children. To make them sleep outside in the cold. To avoid picking them up at all. The good old days were NOT so good. |
|
|
I know almost nothing about Dr. Spock, but I know that this view of childrearing (that aimed at efficiency and indiependence and minimized affection) followed the industrial revolution and was promoted by a behaviorist named John Watson in a book published in the 1920's called The Psychological Care of the Infant and Child
Regarding family size, I think Irene was correct when she wrote:
Quote:
| I am not a history expert, but from my limited knowledge it seems that even in the past, not that many people had what I will call "extra-large" families. (By that I mean, say, 10 or more children.) I'm not saying they didn't exist, or that there were not more of them than there are today, but I am just saying that it does not seem to me that they were the norm. (Am I very off base here?) |
|
|
I also had in the back of my mind somewhere that the average number of children born to a couple who married in their late teens or early twenties, did nothing to avoid conceiving and whose children were not weaned early (before their second birthday or so) was between 5 and 10. But I couldn't remember where I had read or heard this, so I did a little poking around and found this study which looked at 3000+ families in 17th-18th century Canada and France and found an average of 6-11 children per family. Now that's a lot more than the societal norm these days, but it's right in line with what I see in what someone else referred to as 'fully evangelized' Catholic families.
But I also think this:
Quote:
| did anyone mention the cesarean rate (and the low VBAC rate)? While there is no limit per se to the number of cesareans a woman can have (I've read and liked Kimberly Hahn's book!), there will be both physicians' advice, real health concerns/problems, and likely an increase in infertility/miscarriage decreasing the number of babies born to women who have had cesareans. |
|
|
Is a much bigger factor than people realize! From the people I talk to it seems that the number one reason people disagree with the Catholic Church's teachings about family planning is because it doesn't allow women with a 'medical reason' not to become pregnant to use contraception. And guess what that 'medical reason' usually is? 'Too many' (usually more than 3 or 4) c-sections and a doc who has told the woman that she absolutely must not have another. True or not (and I suspect that often it isn't true, but that's another thread) there are a lot of Catholic couples who really believe that a 4th or 5th pregnancy would be life-threatening for the wife and avoid it for that reason.
__________________
Mama to six on earth, two in heaven and two waiting in Russia. Foxberry Farm Almanac
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MacBeth
Forum All-Star
Probably at the beach...
Joined: Jan 27 2005
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: April 19 2006 at 9:07pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
My grandmother was not the cuddle-your-kids type, and in later life she told me that when she had her first kids she was handed a booklet from some modern physicians on keeping your distance from your kids so they did not get spoiled.
She was a brilliant woman who loved her 9 children very much, but showed it in different, non-cuddly ways. I always found it interesting that, despite what the professional-du-jour had to say, a wonderful mother could find a way to convey her love to the kids, naturally. 
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
SaraP
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 15 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: April 19 2006 at 10:21pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Quote:
| but one of the biggest influences would be the modern doctor, Dr. Spock and the introduction of formula! We lost one or two generations in regulating baby's sleeping, eating, lack of bonding...giving formula instead of nursing. |
|
|
I've been thinking on this one and I'm not sure that I agree.
Historically when women have not breastfed their own children (as among the nobility and aristocracy in lots of times and places throughout history) or when they have been encouraged to wean as soon as possible (as in Puritan America) it was often with the express purpose of having LARGER families.
So, taken all by itself, wouldn't the introduction of formula have led to couples having more children because it decreased the natural supression of fertility that usually occurs during breastfeeding?
On the other hand formula-feeding made it possible for women of every class to leave their babies with someone else and go right back to working outside the home, which contributes to the inflated ideas we have about what is an acceptable standard of living, which leaves people thinking they can't afford more than a few children, etc., etc.
__________________
Mama to six on earth, two in heaven and two waiting in Russia. Foxberry Farm Almanac
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: April 20 2006 at 5:43am | IP Logged
|
|
|
SaraP wrote:
Is a much bigger factor than people realize! From the people I talk to it seems that the number one reason people disagree with the Catholic Church's teachings about family planning is because it doesn't allow women with a 'medical reason' not to become pregnant to use contraception. And guess what that 'medical reason' usually is? 'Too many' (usually more than 3 or 4) c-sections and a doc who has told the woman that she absolutely must not have another. True or not (and I suspect that often it isn't true, but that's another thread) there are a lot of Catholic couples who really believe that a 4th or 5th pregnancy would be life-threatening for the wife and avoid it for that reason. |
|
|
I'm someone who was told by several priests following cancer to use ABC. And then I was told by one brave priest not to use it. He directed me to local CCL who in turn directed me to a member of their medical advisory board who was an oncologist. There, for the first time, I heard clearly spoken how faith and reason can co-exist in honest-to-goodness openness. I started charting because we were not certain I was still fertile after chemo. Two weeks later, I had a routine appointment with my oncologist. I asked him if it was okay to conceive and he told me (I can quote directly because I've repeated it to myself so many times)"I don't think you are able right now, but if you are able to conceive, I think you are healthy enough to carry to term and to raise that baby." I conceived that night. That baby was born nearly three weeks late (definitely to term, and then some). Last night, he was confirmed in the Faith. In the fall, he will be the godfather of our eighth baby, the seventh one born post-chemo. What is interesting about this story in this conversation, is that it was the priests who pushed the birth control (here in the very conservative Arlington Diocese) and the doctors who were open to the possibility of life.
It's easy for an OB to say not to have any more. Often, they don't stop and consider the gravity of what they are saying. For most women, stopping after three c-sections isn't really a change of plans. So a doctor sealing that decision isn't a big deal. If a woman is a repeat section who wants more babies than her doctor has advised, she really does need to do her homework and seek the counsel of doctors who are excellent surgeons, experienced obstetricians AND committed advocates of large families. Those doctors are out there. We have women on this board who are witnesses to that. Molly Smith is due to have her sixth c-section in the fall. Her doctor was nearly giddy with delight over her family size when she went for her first OB visit this time. Lisa in New Orleans is expecting her eighth baby by section...
I don't disagree that the repeat C-section rate has something to with falling birth rates, but I also think it's a mindset behind the medical advice that is more to blame. We are not living in a culture of life and it's up to us to change that culture--as Kimberly Hahn has said--one diaper at a time!
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
SaraP
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 15 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: April 20 2006 at 10:42am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Elizabeth wrote:
| It's easy for an OB to say not to have any more. Often, they don't stop and consider the gravity of what they are saying. For most women, stopping after three c-sections isn't really a change of plans. So a doctor sealing that decision isn't a big deal. |
|
|
This is so true and in general I think obstetrical decisions are made with far too little thought towards preserving a woman's ability to have more than a few children.
Labor is induced for any reason at all because in the back of his or her mind the doc knows that if Pitocin doesn't do the trick, a C-section will. VBACs are discouraged because repeat C-sections are simpler and safer (legally) for the doctor. And there is no thought at all given to the consequences for a woman who isn't just going to have her tubes tied and call it quits after a 3 or 4 (at most!).
So even for a woman who hasn't had a C-section and has no reason to suspect she will need one, it's still worth it to seek out a doc or midwife who is supportive of large families. Now if only those kind of docs were easier to find . . .
__________________
Mama to six on earth, two in heaven and two waiting in Russia. Foxberry Farm Almanac
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Christine
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 23 2006
Location: Washington
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1151
|
| Posted: April 20 2006 at 10:48am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Elizabeth wrote:
| I'm someone who was told by several priests following cancer to use ABC. And then I was told by one brave priest not to use it. He directed me to local CCL who in turn directed me to a member of their medical advisory board who was an oncologist. There, for the first time, I heard clearly spoken how faith and reason can co-exist in honest-to-goodness openness. I started charting because we were not certain I was still fertile after chemo. Two weeks later, I had a routine appointment with my oncologist. I asked him if it was okay to conceive and he told me (I can quote directly because I've repeated it to myself so many times)"I don't think you are able right now, but if you are able to conceive, I think you are healthy enough to carry to term and to raise that baby." I conceived that night. That baby was born nearly three weeks late (definitely to term, and then some). Last night, he was confirmed in the Faith. In the fall, he will be the godfather of our eighth baby, the seventh one born post-chemo. |
|
|
Elizabeth,
Tears are rolling down my face. Thank you for being such an incredible witness to life. Congratulations to your son! May God continue to bless you and your family!
__________________
Christine
Mommy to 4 girls, 5 boys, & 2 in God's care
Memories of a Catholic Wife and Mother
Pretty Lilla Rose
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: April 20 2006 at 11:01am | IP Logged
|
|
|
MacBeth wrote:
| She was a brilliant woman who loved her 9 children very much, but showed it in different, non-cuddly ways. I always found it interesting that, despite what the professional-du-jour had to say, a wonderful mother could find a way to convey her love to the kids, naturally. |
|
|
That thought is a keeper, MacBeth!
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
abcmommy
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 09 2006
Location: Indiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: April 20 2006 at 4:13pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Connecting Dr Spock with Sanger just bc they were honored by the same group is definitely maligning him. 
And connecting Spock with over-regulation of children (a lost generation? thats pretty harsh, isnt it?) and other modern evils is pretty negative, too. I think Spock does not belong in a category of people who have done a disservice to women as mothers, whether they choose to have umpteen children or only one.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Elizabeth
Founder
Real Learning
Joined: Jan 20 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5595
|
| Posted: April 20 2006 at 4:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Dr. Spock was a secular humanist. So was Margaret Sanger. They do share that categorization. They both accepted that award. And humanism is absolutely contrary to openness to life in the Catholic sense of the phrase. Humanism did a great deal to erode the moral fiber of our country and to erode the strength of the family. During the height of his career, Spock propogated humanism. Towards the end of his life, he, himself, recognized with regret the great harm that humanism had done to society. For instance,Spock wrote in his famous book of Darwinism. He said that watching a baby grow is "full of meaning" because,
"the development of each individual child retraces the whole history of the human race, physically and spiritually, step by step. Babies start off in the womb as a single tiny cell, just the way the first living thing appeared in the ocean. Weeks later, as they lie in the amniotic fluid in the womb, they have gills like fish. Toward the end of the first year of life, when they learn to clamber to their feet, they're celebrating that period millions of years ago when our ancestors got up off all fours. It's just at that time that babies are learning to use their fingers with skill and delicacy. Our ancestors stood up because they had found more useful things to do with their hands than walking on them" (Spock and Rothenberg, 1992, p. 301). There is no God there, no appreciation that a baby is the result of the love of three: husband, wife, and Creator. There's no nod to all the purposes and benefits of children we discussed in the Covenanted Happiness thread. Those purposes were intended by a Creator, who made the baby in HIS OWN LIKENESS. An omniscient being who not did think the child like a fish ever. Instead, we have Spock describing a cell that evolves into a fish and then into a person (which was later proved to be faulty science, btw).
Later, in a book that his biographer calls his spiritual autobiography, Spock writes:
"man has lost his belief in himself and his sense of direction because the concepts of evolution, of psychology, and of sociology have undermined the authority of religion and man's identification with God.
They have induced man to belittle himself, to conceive of himself as merely an animal divisible into a number of mechanical parts and drives" (Bloom, p. 213).
He was a humanist--once proud to be associated with other humanists of his time--who later saw the errors of humanism. He decided that much of his philosophy was founded on error--the errors of humanistic thought. The question is, however, how many people bought into the philosophy and never recognized the error??
Did humanism do any favors to women in answering the call to be wives and mothers? Were our mothers--who were the first generation to have access to the pill and the influences of Betty Friedan, Margaret Sanger, and even Benjamin Spock--better mothers than their mothers? I think that if we look at anecdotal evidence, we'll find that mothers of our mothers' generation who were rooted in the Faith were generally happy in their vocation and were more likely to raise large families. Mothers who were caught up in the secular humanist message were more likely to contracept, to limit family size, and to abandon traditional mothering practices like breastfeeding. In general, connectedness to the traditions and the beliefs of our grandparents' generation yielded far more family-friendly results in our parents, than those who embraced the new culture--a culture that ultimately came to be known as a culture of death.
__________________
Elizabeth Foss is no longer a member of this forum. Discussions now reflect the current management & are not necessarily expressions of her book, *Real Learning*, her current work, or her philosophy. (posted by E. Foss, Jan 2011)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
insegnante
Forum All-Star
Joined: April 07 2006
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1143
|
| Posted: April 20 2006 at 5:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Backing up a little to the subject of why faithful Catholic families seem smaller these days, does anyone else find herself uncomfortable with how commonly other Catholic *NFPing* couples discuss procreation in certain ways -- asking "Was he planned?", saying "We're not sure if we 'want' more", etc.? I know that determining serious reasons to postpone really is a matter of prayerful discernment for the individual couple so I do try to keep my nose out of analyzing almost any such info that is offered. Talk of "not wanting more" could charitably be assumed to mean simply "because we can't prudently enlarge our family right now."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Mothering and Family Life
Topic: What has changed?
