Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have not seen anyone "demonize, ridicule and put down those who live more Godly lives."

---

I find this very hard to believe. You ever heard of The Handmaid's Tale? You ever heard of the excessive coverage regarding pedophilia in The Catholic Church. How are Christians portrayed in Hollywood movies? I was just reading yesterday about some liberal nuts were upset because a Christian was putting up signs about the need for prayer on private property. They tried to smear her saying she didn't care about shootings. Have you ever read books or interviews by The New Atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins who give license to their audiences to belittle and insult Christians. I am astounded that you have made this claim.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have seen a backlash against people who wish to impose religiously-based beliefs about homosexuality--beliefs that aren't uniformly shared by Christians (my own church, United Methodist, is very divided on this issue; my former church, the Episcopal Church, now ordains gay priests)--abortion and contraception, attempting to impose their beliefs on all Americans with the force of law. In a "free" country where separation of church and state is a core value, people should be free to decide who to marry and to make personal decisions about their own bodies without having the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans imposed on them with the force of law.

---

Church teaching on the topic of homosexuality has been clear for almost 2000 years. With abortion, it has been clear for say 1500 years and with contraception this is a newer phenomenon but given Christians believe in the sanctity of life, it's position has not been surprising. All you have done is merely highlight how secular views have infiltrated the Church. And there have been plenty of folks who have vilified the Church over these positions in recent times.

---

Not all churches agree that homosexuality is a sin. Not all churches believe in biblical inerrancy. Even fewer churches believe in the inerrancy of the Church's current leadership. Although that's part of Catholic doctrine, the Catholics I know often disagree with the current papal stance on various issues.

There's also not unanimity of opinion even in churches where leadership has taken the position that homosexuality is a sin. One Catholic colleague just said this week that the priest of her parish would never preach against homosexuality, because her congregation, which includes gay members, would be offended by such preaching. She believes he was assigned to her church because his "liberal" views aligned with those of her congregation. My church, the United Methodist, is divided on this issue, with more American congregations supporting ordination of openly gay ministers, but the church as a whole opposing it because of conservative congregations in Africa, where there's not just a religious, but also a cultural taboo against homosexuality.

While churches and their leadership can decide how to interpret the Bible and what is and is not a sin that disqualifies someone for fellowship and even salvation, the law has a different purpose. In a nation with separation of church and state where personal freedom is valued so highly that we won't restrict the sale of assault weapons and ammo, our laws should not tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. If you believe abortion is a sin, then you also believe a woman who has an abortion will be punished for that sin, during life and possibly with eternal damnation. Don't you trust God to deal with sinners, including homosexuals and women who seek abortions, whether they are married or not?

Even if you don't, we can't write laws to stop people from sinning; that certainly didn't work for the Jews! That's one of the reasons God sent Jesus: To establish the highest laws: Love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you." If more churches focused on those ethics and prayed for people they view as sinners rather than condemning them, churches would have more members and be an increasing, rather than declining, societal influence.

Neither should laws be tailored to accommodate the most conservative religious beliefs among us. Were that the case, women's access to education and jobs would still be severely restricted, as they were until less than a century ago.

---

I'm not interested in punishment. Abortion laws have hardly ever punished the women who sought abortions. But it's a serious mistake to think that laws regarding sexuality are only tailored to religious beliefs and don't have a practical, secular purpose. Few things are more important to society than the well-being of the family.

---

Do you think there is broad societal agreement on what constitutes a family for the purposes of laws intended to promote and preserve the "well-being of the family"?

For example, we have old friends, a gay couple, who adopted two children from the foster care system. One was an infant they fostered for almost a year; the other was his younger sister (who likely had a different father).

Their children are now teenagers and enjoying what I would consider a comfortable, stable middle-class life with 2 conscientious parents who have been committed to each other for 31 years now and who married as soon as that became a legal option for them. Both parents have professional jobs; one is an ordained minister in the Disciples of Christ, having left the United Methodist Church because that church would not ordain openly gay ministers.

Should society outlaw their marriage and their family because a minority of Ameicans have religious objections to their sexual relationship and orientation? Should their children be removed from their home and placed with a male/female couple if one can be found willing to adopt 2 teenagers?

---

I think there's broad agreement within the human species as to what constitutes a family. Some societies have experimented with institutionalizing homosexuality, but the result is never really an assimilation of same-sex relationships to the traditional form. Instead what they end up with is a dual set of relationship models with very different customs and purposes. Motherhood is devalued, while heterosexual marriage becomes less about companionship and more about the perfunctory generation of offspring.

I would give preference in adoption to male/female couples, but I don't think it would be fair to remove the children in the situation you describe. Not every arrangement can be ideal.

---

I don't know anyone who views "generation of offspring" as "perfunctory." Having children is the biggest, most profound event in most peoples' lives, whether you are male or female and whether they are born to you or adopted by you. It might seem more perfunctory under a regime where all forms of birth control were prohibited and large families were thus common. Most of my friends who have children have 1 to 3 children, and they value them more than their own lives.

IMO, motherhood has ALWAYS been devalued in our culture--and in many others. In Japan, where marriage really is for children, wives and mothers are relegated to such a subservient, sacrificial role that many woman of my daughters' generation are opting out completely. Who wants to go to college or get a professional credential and then be treated like a household servant by your spouse?

In the U.S., society and established churches pay a lot of lip service to motherhood, but as far as actually supporting women, especially those who either want to work and have children or those, like my office colleague, who was widowed at 30 with two young children she supports, we do little. Good day care is scarce and unaffordable. Bad day care is scarce and unaffordable. We aren't investing in public schools.

That's because we have a society where market value is the most important measure. The low salaries of day care workers, homehealth aides, teachers and people who clean houses indicate how low a value we assign to the work traditionally done by stay-at-home mothers.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have not seen anyone "demonize, ridicule and put down those who live more Godly lives."

---

I find this very hard to believe. You ever heard of The Handmaid's Tale? You ever heard of the excessive coverage regarding pedophilia in The Catholic Church. How are Christians portrayed in Hollywood movies? I was just reading yesterday about some liberal nuts were upset because a Christian was putting up signs about the need for prayer on private property. They tried to smear her saying she didn't care about shootings. Have you ever read books or interviews by The New Atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins who give license to their audiences to belittle and insult Christians. I am astounded that you have made this claim.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have seen a backlash against people who wish to impose religiously-based beliefs about homosexuality--beliefs that aren't uniformly shared by Christians (my own church, United Methodist, is very divided on this issue; my former church, the Episcopal Church, now ordains gay priests)--abortion and contraception, attempting to impose their beliefs on all Americans with the force of law. In a "free" country where separation of church and state is a core value, people should be free to decide who to marry and to make personal decisions about their own bodies without having the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans imposed on them with the force of law.

---

Church teaching on the topic of homosexuality has been clear for almost 2000 years. With abortion, it has been clear for say 1500 years and with contraception this is a newer phenomenon but given Christians believe in the sanctity of life, it's position has not been surprising. All you have done is merely highlight how secular views have infiltrated the Church. And there have been plenty of folks who have vilified the Church over these positions in recent times.

---

Not all churches agree that homosexuality is a sin. Not all churches believe in biblical inerrancy. Even fewer churches believe in the inerrancy of the Church's current leadership. Although that's part of Catholic doctrine, the Catholics I know often disagree with the current papal stance on various issues.

There's also not unanimity of opinion even in churches where leadership has taken the position that homosexuality is a sin. One Catholic colleague just said this week that the priest of her parish would never preach against homosexuality, because her congregation, which includes gay members, would be offended by such preaching. She believes he was assigned to her church because his "liberal" views aligned with those of her congregation. My church, the United Methodist, is divided on this issue, with more American congregations supporting ordination of openly gay ministers, but the church as a whole opposing it because of conservative congregations in Africa, where there's not just a religious, but also a cultural taboo against homosexuality.

While churches and their leadership can decide how to interpret the Bible and what is and is not a sin that disqualifies someone for fellowship and even salvation, the law has a different purpose. In a nation with separation of church and state where personal freedom is valued so highly that we won't restrict the sale of assault weapons and ammo, our laws should not tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. If you believe abortion is a sin, then you also believe a woman who has an abortion will be punished for that sin, during life and possibly with eternal damnation. Don't you trust God to deal with sinners, including homosexuals and women who seek abortions, whether they are married or not?

Even if you don't, we can't write laws to stop people from sinning; that certainly didn't work for the Jews! That's one of the reasons God sent Jesus: To establish the highest laws: Love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you." If more churches focused on those ethics and prayed for people they view as sinners rather than condemning them, churches would have more members and be an increasing, rather than declining, societal influence.

Neither should laws be tailored to accommodate the most conservative religious beliefs among us. Were that the case, women's access to education and jobs would still be severely restricted, as they were until less than a century ago.

---

I'm not interested in punishment. Abortion laws have hardly ever punished the women who sought abortions. But it's a serious mistake to think that laws regarding sexuality are only tailored to religious beliefs and don't have a practical, secular purpose. Few things are more important to society than the well-being of the family.

---

Do you think there is broad societal agreement on what constitutes a family for the purposes of laws intended to promote and preserve the "well-being of the family"?

For example, we have old friends, a gay couple, who adopted two children from the foster care system. One was an infant they fostered for almost a year; the other was his younger sister (who likely had a different father).

Their children are now teenagers and enjoying what I would consider a comfortable, stable middle-class life with 2 conscientious parents who have been committed to each other for 31 years now and who married as soon as that became a legal option for them. Both parents have professional jobs; one is an ordained minister in the Disciples of Christ, having left the United Methodist Church because that church would not ordain openly gay ministers.

Should society outlaw their marriage and their family because a minority of Ameicans have religious objections to their sexual relationship and orientation? Should their children be removed from their home and placed with a male/female couple if one can be found willing to adopt 2 teenagers?

---

I think there's broad agreement within the human species as to what constitutes a family. Some societies have experimented with institutionalizing homosexuality, but the result is never really an assimilation of same-sex relationships to the traditional form. Instead what they end up with is a dual set of relationship models with very different customs and purposes. Motherhood is devalued, while heterosexual marriage becomes less about companionship and more about the perfunctory generation of offspring.

I would give preference in adoption to male/female couples, but I don't think it would be fair to remove the children in the situation you describe. Not every arrangement can be ideal.

---

I don't know anyone who views "generation of offspring" as "perfunctory." Having children is the biggest, most profound event in most peoples' lives, whether you are male or female and whether they are born to you or adopted by you.

---

That's because we live in what remains of a Christian culture, where love and procreation were thought to be inseparably bound. We're in the process of reverting to the pagan model, where marriage is more transactional and women are mere incubators.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think there's broad agreement within the human species as to what constitutes a family. Some societies have experimented with institutionalizing homosexuality, but the result is never really an assimilation of same-sex relationships to the traditional form. Instead what they end up with is a dual set of relationship models with very different customs and purposes. Motherhood is devalued, while heterosexual marriage becomes less about companionship and more about the perfunctory generation of offspring.

I would give preference in adoption to male/female couples, but I don't think it would be fair to remove the children in the situation you describe. Not every arrangement can be ideal.

---

I don't know anyone who views "generation of offspring" as "perfunctory." Having children is the biggest, most profound event in most peoples' lives, whether you are male or female and whether they are born to you or adopted by you.

---

That's because we live in what remains of a Christian culture, where love and procreation were thought to be inseparably bound. We're in the process of reverting to the pagan model, where marriage is more transactional and women are mere incubators.

---

Most of my work colleagues aren't religious. The ones who are, are Jewish, so their culture is definitely not Christian, but familiar enough to us, since Jesus was a Jew.

I'm seeing a pattern with the younger married women--and the women who have children ARE married: They achieve professional status, and then immediately have children, typically 2 but sometimes 3, spaced fairly close togehter, because they've worked during their 20s to establish themselves professionally.

They aren't devalued as "incubators." But they do appear to feel they must "prove themselves" professionally before they start a family. They experience a productivity dip during the period when their chldren are very young. This is quietly tolerated but not celebrated or encouraged.

Most men of the same generation have wives with less demanding careers. One wife who has prestigious degrees from the same schools her husband attended stopped working while her children were young because the family lived in New York, and she could not earn enough to pay the extremely high cost of good day care for their 3 sons. She is now restarting her career, but only working part-time, a luxury she has because her husband earns more than $250K.

So the pattern is different for men and women. But I don't see women--either the professionals who establish themselves professional and then rush to have children or the wives who either scale back or stop working completely while their chldren are young--devalued in any way.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think there's broad agreement within the human species as to what constitutes a family. Some societies have experimented with institutionalizing homosexuality, but the result is never really an assimilation of same-sex relationships to the traditional form. Instead what they end up with is a dual set of relationship models with very different customs and purposes. Motherhood is devalued, while heterosexual marriage becomes less about companionship and more about the perfunctory generation of offspring.

I would give preference in adoption to male/female couples, but I don't think it would be fair to remove the children in the situation you describe. Not every arrangement can be ideal.

---

I don't know anyone who views "generation of offspring" as "perfunctory." Having children is the biggest, most profound event in most peoples' lives, whether you are male or female and whether they are born to you or adopted by you.

---

That's because we live in what remains of a Christian culture, where love and procreation were thought to be inseparably bound. We're in the process of reverting to the pagan model, where marriage is more transactional and women are mere incubators.

---

Most of my work colleagues aren't religious. The ones who are, are Jewish, so their culture is definitely not Christian, but familiar enough to us, since Jesus was a Jew.

I'm seeing a pattern with the younger married women--and the women who have children ARE married: They achieve professional status, and then immediately have children, typically 2 but sometimes 3, spaced fairly close togehter, because they've worked during their 20s to establish themselves professionally.

They aren't devalued as "incutors." But they do appear to feel they must "prove themselves" professionally before they start a family. They experience a productivity dip during the period when their chldren are very young. This is quietly tolerated but not celebrated or encouraged.

Most men of the same generation have wives with less demanding careers. One wife who has prestigious degrees from the same schools her husband attended stopped working while her children were young because the family lived in New York, and she could not earn enough to pay the extremely high cost of good day care for their 3 sons. She is now restarting her career, but only working part-time, a luxury she has because her husband earns more than $250K.

So the pattern is different for men and women. But I don't see women--either the professionals who establish themselves professional and then rush to have children or the wives who either scale back or stop working completely while their chldren are young--devalued in any way.

---

Well, same-sex marriage has only been the law of the land for four years. Even now, as you say, working part time is a luxury and caring for young children is tolerated more than encouraged...and that's among professionals. Plenty of other women don't enjoy the same benefits.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think there's broad agreement within the human species as to what constitutes a family. Some societies have experimented with institutionalizing homosexuality, but the result is never really an assimilation of same-sex relationships to the traditional form. Instead what they end up with is a dual set of relationship models with very different customs and purposes. Motherhood is devalued, while heterosexual marriage becomes less about companionship and more about the perfunctory generation of offspring.

I would give preference in adoption to male/female couples, but I don't think it would be fair to remove the children in the situation you describe. Not every arrangement can be ideal.

---

I don't know anyone who views "generation of offspring" as "perfunctory." Having children is the biggest, most profound event in most peoples' lives, whether you are male or female and whether they are born to you or adopted by you.

---

That's because we live in what remains of a Christian culture, where love and procreation were thought to be inseparably bound. We're in the process of reverting to the pagan model, where marriage is more transactional and women are mere incubators.

---

Most of my work colleagues aren't religious. The ones who are, are Jewish, so their culture is definitely not Christian, but familiar enough to us, since Jesus was a Jew.

I'm seeing a pattern with the younger married women--and the women who have children ARE married: They achieve professional status, and then immediately have children, typically 2 but sometimes 3, spaced fairly close togehter, because they've worked during their 20s to establish themselves professionally.

They aren't devalued as "incutors." But they do appear to feel they must "prove themselves" professionally before they start a family. They experience a productivity dip during the period when their chldren are very young. This is quietly tolerated but not celebrated or encouraged.

Most men of the same generation have wives with less demanding careers. One wife who has prestigious degrees from the same schools her husband attended stopped working while her children were young because the family lived in New York, and she could not earn enough to pay the extremely high cost of good day care for their 3 sons. She is now restarting her career, but only working part-time, a luxury she has because her husband earns more than $250K.

So the pattern is different for men and women. But I don't see women--either the professionals who establish themselves professional and then rush to have children or the wives who either scale back or stop working completely while their chldren are young--devalued in any way.

---

Well, same-sex marriage has only been the law of the land for four years. Even now, as you say, working part time is a luxury and caring for young children is tolerated more than encouraged...and that's among professionals. Plenty of other women don't enjoy the same benefits.

---

You're right. So how is eliminating the ability of women to control their fertility so they risk pregnancy every time they have sex going to help low-income women who literally must work, sometimes 2 jobs, to keep a roof over their family's head and food on the table?.What should society do to support these women?

Countries where most women do not work outside the home and where fertility is largely uncontrolled do worse economically and women are subject to much more violence and abuse. Take a look at the status of women in India (where a self-created scarcity of women hasn't increased their value but has increased incidences of rape and abuse) and Afghanistan.

Sam Lowry said:

---

That's because we live in what remains of a Christian culture, where love and procreation were thought to be inseparably bound. We're in the process of reverting to the pagan model, where marriage is more transactional and women are mere incubators.

---

I don't think many people realize this but it seems to be the case. Still, Tim Keller in his book "The Reason For God" said that Orthodox Christianity is also growing in the US. This book was published in 2008 but I wouldn't be shocked if you saw this change as many people are seeing the effects of nihilism and are turned off wanting something more traditional as a result.

BellCountyBear said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

I'm surprised nobody has any opinions on this. Does the research line up with what you expected or did you think it would be different? If you had a daughter, how would you advise her in this area?

---

The same way my parents advised me and my sister. "You'll never have to apologize for being a virgin on your wedding night."

---

if someone is apologizing on their wedding night for activity they did before they met their spouse, they shouldn't be getting married to that person.

bularry said:

---

BellCountyBear said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

I'm surprised nobody has any opinions on this. Does the research line up with what you expected or did you think it would be different? If you had a daughter, how would you advise her in this area?

---

The same way my parents advised me and my sister. "You'll never have to apologize for being a virgin on your wedding night."

---

if someone is apologizing on their wedding night for activity they did before they met their spouse, they shouldn't be getting married to that person.

---

Nailed it (no pun intended)

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think there's broad agreement within the human species as to what constitutes a family. Some societies have experimented with institutionalizing homosexuality, but the result is never really an assimilation of same-sex relationships to the traditional form. Instead what they end up with is a dual set of relationship models with very different customs and purposes. Motherhood is devalued, while heterosexual marriage becomes less about companionship and more about the perfunctory generation of offspring.

I would give preference in adoption to male/female couples, but I don't think it would be fair to remove the children in the situation you describe. Not every arrangement can be ideal.

---

I don't know anyone who views "generation of offspring" as "perfunctory." Having children is the biggest, most profound event in most peoples' lives, whether you are male or female and whether they are born to you or adopted by you.

---

That's because we live in what remains of a Christian culture, where love and procreation were thought to be inseparably bound. We're in the process of reverting to the pagan model, where marriage is more transactional and women are mere incubators.

---

Most of my work colleagues aren't religious. The ones who are, are Jewish, so their culture is definitely not Christian, but familiar enough to us, since Jesus was a Jew.

I'm seeing a pattern with the younger married women--and the women who have children ARE married: They achieve professional status, and then immediately have children, typically 2 but sometimes 3, spaced fairly close togehter, because they've worked during their 20s to establish themselves professionally.

They aren't devalued as "incutors." But they do appear to feel they must "prove themselves" professionally before they start a family. They experience a productivity dip during the period when their chldren are very young. This is quietly tolerated but not celebrated or encouraged.

Most men of the same generation have wives with less demanding careers. One wife who has prestigious degrees from the same schools her husband attended stopped working while her children were young because the family lived in New York, and she could not earn enough to pay the extremely high cost of good day care for their 3 sons. She is now restarting her career, but only working part-time, a luxury she has because her husband earns more than $250K.

So the pattern is different for men and women. But I don't see women--either the professionals who establish themselves professional and then rush to have children or the wives who either scale back or stop working completely while their chldren are young--devalued in any way.

---

Well, same-sex marriage has only been the law of the land for four years. Even now, as you say, working part time is a luxury and caring for young children is tolerated more than encouraged...and that's among professionals. Plenty of other women don't enjoy the same benefits.

---

You're right. So how is eliminating the ability of women to control their fertility so they risk pregnancy every time they have sex going to help low-income women who literally must work, sometimes 2 jobs, to keep a roof over their family's head and food on the table?.What should society do to support these women?

Countries where most women do not work outside the home and where fertility is largely uncontrolled do worse economically and women are subject to much more violence and abuse. Take a look at the status of women in India (where a self-created scarcity of women hasn't increased their value but has increased incidences of rape and abuse) and Afghanistan.

---

I'd like to see paid parental leave and on-site child care, at least. What I don't like about birth control is that it only helps women who don't get pregnant. By treating pregnancy as the problem, we punish those who want to have children, or who get pregnant and do what I believe is the right thing by accepting the child.

Our economy grew to be the greatest in the world during a time when most women didn't work outside the home and fertility was largely uncontrolled. I'm not against women working, but I think we were better off when they did so by choice, not from necessity.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think there's broad agreement within the human species as to what constitutes a family. Some societies have experimented with institutionalizing homosexuality, but the result is never really an assimilation of same-sex relationships to the traditional form. Instead what they end up with is a dual set of relationship models with very different customs and purposes. Motherhood is devalued, while heterosexual marriage becomes less about companionship and more about the perfunctory generation of offspring.

I would give preference in adoption to male/female couples, but I don't think it would be fair to remove the children in the situation you describe. Not every arrangement can be ideal.

---

I don't know anyone who views "generation of offspring" as "perfunctory." Having children is the biggest, most profound event in most peoples' lives, whether you are male or female and whether they are born to you or adopted by you.

---

That's because we live in what remains of a Christian culture, where love and procreation were thought to be inseparably bound. We're in the process of reverting to the pagan model, where marriage is more transactional and women are mere incubators.

---

Most of my work colleagues aren't religious. The ones who are, are Jewish, so their culture is definitely not Christian, but familiar enough to us, since Jesus was a Jew.

I'm seeing a pattern with the younger married women--and the women who have children ARE married: They achieve professional status, and then immediately have children, typically 2 but sometimes 3, spaced fairly close togehter, because they've worked during their 20s to establish themselves professionally.

They aren't devalued as "incutors." But they do appear to feel they must "prove themselves" professionally before they start a family. They experience a productivity dip during the period when their chldren are very young. This is quietly tolerated but not celebrated or encouraged.

Most men of the same generation have wives with less demanding careers. One wife who has prestigious degrees from the same schools her husband attended stopped working while her children were young because the family lived in New York, and she could not earn enough to pay the extremely high cost of good day care for their 3 sons. She is now restarting her career, but only working part-time, a luxury she has because her husband earns more than $250K.

So the pattern is different for men and women. But I don't see women--either the professionals who establish themselves professional and then rush to have children or the wives who either scale back or stop working completely while their chldren are young--devalued in any way.

---

Well, same-sex marriage has only been the law of the land for four years. Even now, as you say, working part time is a luxury and caring for young children is tolerated more than encouraged...and that's among professionals. Plenty of other women don't enjoy the same benefits.

---

You're right. So how is eliminating the ability of women to control their fertility so they risk pregnancy every time they have sex going to help low-income women who literally must work, sometimes 2 jobs, to keep a roof over their family's head and food on the table?.What should society do to support these women?

Countries where most women do not work outside the home and where fertility is largely uncontrolled do worse economically and women are subject to much more violence and abuse. Take a look at the status of women in India (where a self-created scarcity of women hasn't increased their value but has increased incidences of rape and abuse) and Afghanistan.

---

I'd like to see paid parental leave and on-site child care, at least. What I don't like about birth control is that it only helps women who don't get pregnant. By treating pregnancy as the problem, we punish those who want to have children, or who get pregnant and do what I believe is the right thing by accepting the child.

Our economy grew to be the greatest in the world during a time when most women didn't work outside the home and fertility was largely uncontrolled. I'm not against women working, but I think we were better off when they did so by choice, not from necessity.

---

I agree about paid parental leave and onsite child care; that would be a worthwhile national investment in supporting families and parents.

I don't agree that birth control treats "pregnancy as the problem." Most women don't use birth control to avoid pregnancy altogether. They use it to control the number of children they have and to time their pregnancies so children are spaced far apart, so pregnancy doesn't interrupt their education, and so they are capable of supporting the children they have in the way they wish to do that, which may include private school, college, taking a break from work to stay home for a few years, etc.

Although I know lots of women who have done it, including one woman who came into law school with an eight-week old infant and a 2-year-old son and had a third son right before earning her J.D. (and still graduated Order of the Coif--the top 10% of the class), most women would find that daunting, and some might not have spouses who pitched in enough to make what she did possible.

The only 'problem" pregnancies are those that are unplanned and occur with women who are not economically capable of supporting a child. Not all women have spouses capable of supporting a family on a single income. Pregnancies have occurred and always will occur out of wedlock. While some women have parents who help support them and a child when an unplanned pregnancy occurs (I have 2 friends whose pregnant daughters moved back in with them to have a baby, and they are now helping to raise their grandchildren, but both of these couples are middle-class homeowners of means), many women don' have that support available.

Making birth control available to women and educating them about it is sensible, especially in this day and time. I find it especially baffling when those who oppose abortion under any circumstance also oppose promoting reliable birth control as a better option for women who (as is their right in a free country) decide to be sexually active out of wedlock.

Trying to control the behavior of people who don't share your religious beliefs by limiting their options by law should be a non-starter in a country where separation of church and state is a core value.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I think there's broad agreement within the human species as to what constitutes a family. Some societies have experimented with institutionalizing homosexuality, but the result is never really an assimilation of same-sex relationships to the traditional form. Instead what they end up with is a dual set of relationship models with very different customs and purposes. Motherhood is devalued, while heterosexual marriage becomes less about companionship and more about the perfunctory generation of offspring.

I would give preference in adoption to male/female couples, but I don't think it would be fair to remove the children in the situation you describe. Not every arrangement can be ideal.

---

I don't know anyone who views "generation of offspring" as "perfunctory." Having children is the biggest, most profound event in most peoples' lives, whether you are male or female and whether they are born to you or adopted by you.

---

That's because we live in what remains of a Christian culture, where love and procreation were thought to be inseparably bound. We're in the process of reverting to the pagan model, where marriage is more transactional and women are mere incubators.

---

Most of my work colleagues aren't religious. The ones who are, are Jewish, so their culture is definitely not Christian, but familiar enough to us, since Jesus was a Jew.

I'm seeing a pattern with the younger married women--and the women who have children ARE married: They achieve professional status, and then immediately have children, typically 2 but sometimes 3, spaced fairly close togehter, because they've worked during their 20s to establish themselves professionally.

They aren't devalued as "incutors." But they do appear to feel they must "prove themselves" professionally before they start a family. They experience a productivity dip during the period when their chldren are very young. This is quietly tolerated but not celebrated or encouraged.

Most men of the same generation have wives with less demanding careers. One wife who has prestigious degrees from the same schools her husband attended stopped working while her children were young because the family lived in New York, and she could not earn enough to pay the extremely high cost of good day care for their 3 sons. She is now restarting her career, but only working part-time, a luxury she has because her husband earns more than $250K.

So the pattern is different for men and women. But I don't see women--either the professionals who establish themselves professional and then rush to have children or the wives who either scale back or stop working completely while their chldren are young--devalued in any way.

---

Well, same-sex marriage has only been the law of the land for four years. Even now, as you say, working part time is a luxury and caring for young children is tolerated more than encouraged...and that's among professionals. Plenty of other women don't enjoy the same benefits.

---

You're right. So how is eliminating the ability of women to control their fertility so they risk pregnancy every time they have sex going to help low-income women who literally must work, sometimes 2 jobs, to keep a roof over their family's head and food on the table?.What should society do to support these women?

Countries where most women do not work outside the home and where fertility is largely uncontrolled do worse economically and women are subject to much more violence and abuse. Take a look at the status of women in India (where a self-created scarcity of women hasn't increased their value but has increased incidences of rape and abuse) and Afghanistan.

---

I'd like to see paid parental leave and on-site child care, at least. What I don't like about birth control is that it only helps women who don't get pregnant. By treating pregnancy as the problem, we punish those who want to have children, or who get pregnant and do what I believe is the right thing by accepting the child.

Our economy grew to be the greatest in the world during a time when most women didn't work outside the home and fertility was largely uncontrolled. I'm not against women working, but I think we were better off when they did so by choice, not from necessity.

---

I agree about paid parental leave and onsite child care; that would be a worthwhile national investment in supporting families and parents.

I don't agree that birth control treats "pregnancy as the problem." Most women don't use birth control to avoid pregnancy altogether. They use it to control the number of children they have and to time their pregnancies so children are spaced far apart, so pregnancy doesn't interrupt their education, and so they are capable of supporting the children they have in the way they wish to do that, which may include private school, college, taking a break from work to stay home for a few years, etc.

Although I know lots of women who have done it, including one woman who came into law school with an eight-week old infant and a 2-year-old son and had a third son right before earning her J.D. (and still graduated Order of the Coif--the top 10% of the class), most women would find that daunting, and some might not have spouses who pitched in enough to make what she did possible.

The only 'problem" pregnancies are those that are unplanned and occur with women who are not economically capable of supporting a child. Not all women have spouses capable of supporting a family on a single income. Pregnancies have occurred and always will occur out of wedlock. While some women have parents who help support them and a child when an unplanned pregnancy occurs (I have 2 friends whose pregnant daughters moved back in with them to have a baby, and they are now helping to raise their grandchildren, but both of these couples are middle-class homeowners of means), many women don' have that support available.

Making birth control available to women and educating them about it is sensible, especially in this day and time. I find it especially baffling when those who oppose abortion under any circumstance also oppose promoting reliable birth control as a better option for women who (as is their right in a free country) decide to be sexually active out of wedlock.

Trying to control the behavior of people who don't share your religious beliefs by limiting their options by law should be a non-starter in a country where separation of church and state is a core value.

---

That's not how separation of church and state works. It's not a trump card.

Jinx 2 said:

---

... That's because we have a society where market value is the most important measure. The low salaries of day care workers, homehealth aides, teachers and people who clean houses indicate how low a value we assign to the work traditionally done by stay-at-home mothers.

---

If you have day care workers, home health aides or people who clean house or mow your lawn or roof your house, do you pay them market value or do you pay them significantly more than market value?

57Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

... That's because we have a society where market value is the most important measure. The low salaries of day care workers, homehealth aides, teachers and people who clean houses indicate how low a value we assign to the work traditionally done by stay-at-home mothers.

---

If you have day care workers, home health aides or people who clean house or mow your lawn or roof your house, do you pay them market value or do you pay them significantly more than market value?

---

I pay the woman who cleans for me once a week $25 an hour. I do not deduct taxes nor do I pay into Social Security for her, so I'm not sure what her net is. And I'm obviously not the only person she works for.

We pay the man who mows our lawn, which is tiny, $25 for what amounts to about 15 minutes of work, including weed whacking and blowing debris from our old-growth trees off the driveway and sidewalk. He brings his own equipment, so we're also paying for that.

When my mother cared for my infant daughter in the 1990s, I paid her $450 a month and paid for a mother's day out program twice a week so she wasn't confined all day every weekday. She didn't need the money, but she had never worked outside the home, and I wanted her to have money she had earned that she could spend any way she chose and I wanted her to know I valued her work. Had I been able to afford to pay her more, I would have. The foundation of love and care she provided both my daughters has been priceless.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

I agree about paid parental leave and onsite child care; that would be a worthwhile national investment in supporting families and parents.

I don't agree that birth control treats "pregnancy as the problem." Most women don't use birth control to avoid pregnancy altogether. They use it to control the number of children they have and to time their pregnancies so children are spaced far apart, so pregnancy doesn't interrupt their education, and so they are capable of supporting the children they have in the way they wish to do that, which may include private school, college, taking a break from work to stay home for a few years, etc.

Although I know lots of women who have done it, including one woman who came into law school with an eight-week old infant and a 2-year-old son and had a third son right before earning her J.D. (and still graduated Order of the Coif--the top 10% of the class), most women would find that daunting, and some might not have spouses who pitched in enough to make what she did possible.

The only 'problem" pregnancies are those that are unplanned and occur with women who are not economically capable of supporting a child. Not all women have spouses capable of supporting a family on a single income. Pregnancies have occurred and always will occur out of wedlock. While some women have parents who help support them and a child when an unplanned pregnancy occurs (I have 2 friends whose pregnant daughters moved back in with them to have a baby, and they are now helping to raise their grandchildren, but both of these couples are middle-class homeowners of means), many women don' have that support available.

Making birth control available to women and educating them about it is sensible, especially in this day and time. I find it especially baffling when those who oppose abortion under any circumstance also oppose promoting reliable birth control as a better option for women who (as is their right in a free country) decide to be sexually active out of wedlock.

Trying to control the behavior of people who don't share your religious beliefs by limiting their options by law should be a non-starter in a country where separation of church and state is a core value.

---

That's not how separation of church and state works. It's not a trump card.

---

How do you think separation of church and state works?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

I agree about paid parental leave and onsite child care; that would be a worthwhile national investment in supporting families and parents.

I don't agree that birth control treats "pregnancy as the problem." Most women don't use birth control to avoid pregnancy altogether. They use it to control the number of children they have and to time their pregnancies so children are spaced far apart, so pregnancy doesn't interrupt their education, and so they are capable of supporting the children they have in the way they wish to do that, which may include private school, college, taking a break from work to stay home for a few years, etc.

Although I know lots of women who have done it, including one woman who came into law school with an eight-week old infant and a 2-year-old son and had a third son right before earning her J.D. (and still graduated Order of the Coif--the top 10% of the class), most women would find that daunting, and some might not have spouses who pitched in enough to make what she did possible.

The only 'problem" pregnancies are those that are unplanned and occur with women who are not economically capable of supporting a child. Not all women have spouses capable of supporting a family on a single income. Pregnancies have occurred and always will occur out of wedlock. While some women have parents who help support them and a child when an unplanned pregnancy occurs (I have 2 friends whose pregnant daughters moved back in with them to have a baby, and they are now helping to raise their grandchildren, but both of these couples are middle-class homeowners of means), many women don' have that support available.

Making birth control available to women and educating them about it is sensible, especially in this day and time. I find it especially baffling when those who oppose abortion under any circumstance also oppose promoting reliable birth control as a better option for women who (as is their right in a free country) decide to be sexually active out of wedlock.

Trying to control the behavior of people who don't share your religious beliefs by limiting their options by law should be a non-starter in a country where separation of church and state is a core value.

---

That's not how separation of church and state works. It's not a trump card.

---

How do you think separation of church and state works?

---

Policies win or lose on their merits, not because they are or are not endorsed by a church. The prohibition of stealing isn't a non-starter just because it's in the Bible.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

I agree about paid parental leave and onsite child care; that would be a worthwhile national investment in supporting families and parents.

I don't agree that birth control treats "pregnancy as the problem." Most women don't use birth control to avoid pregnancy altogether. They use it to control the number of children they have and to time their pregnancies so children are spaced far apart, so pregnancy doesn't interrupt their education, and so they are capable of supporting the children they have in the way they wish to do that, which may include private school, college, taking a break from work to stay home for a few years, etc.

Although I know lots of women who have done it, including one woman who came into law school with an eight-week old infant and a 2-year-old son and had a third son right before earning her J.D. (and still graduated Order of the Coif--the top 10% of the class), most women would find that daunting, and some might not have spouses who pitched in enough to make what she did possible.

The only 'problem" pregnancies are those that are unplanned and occur with women who are not economically capable of supporting a child. Not all women have spouses capable of supporting a family on a single income. Pregnancies have occurred and always will occur out of wedlock. While some women have parents who help support them and a child when an unplanned pregnancy occurs (I have 2 friends whose pregnant daughters moved back in with them to have a baby, and they are now helping to raise their grandchildren, but both of these couples are middle-class homeowners of means), many women don' have that support available.

Making birth control available to women and educating them about it is sensible, especially in this day and time. I find it especially baffling when those who oppose abortion under any circumstance also oppose promoting reliable birth control as a better option for women who (as is their right in a free country) decide to be sexually active out of wedlock.

Trying to control the behavior of people who don't share your religious beliefs by limiting their options by law should be a non-starter in a country where separation of church and state is a core value.

---

That's not how separation of church and state works. It's not a trump card.

---

How do you think separation of church and state works?

---

Policies win or lose on their merits, not because they are or are not endorsed by a church. The prohibition of stealing isn't a non-starter just because it's in the Bible.

---

Neither is the prohibition on killing. Most societies on the planet agree that murder and torture are wrong, even if their societies sanction it under some circumstances (like honor killings of Islamic women).

There are certain moral standards almost everyone agrees with. Murder and stealing both fit in that category.

My argument is simply that the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of Catholics, don't support legal prohibitions on birth control. https://www.pewforum.org/2016/09/28/where-the-public-stands-on-religious-liberty-vs-nondiscrimination/

A majority of Americans support abortion rights. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730758875/poll-shows-most-americans-support-abortion-rights-but-with-some-limitations

Here's an excerpt from that story:

So the bottom line is that most Americans favor legal abortion in some cases and not in others. And most people - 77% - say the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade. Just 13% say it should be overturned. So where people differ is in the particulars. In this poll, 18% said abortion should be legal at any time during pregnancy. Nine percent said it should never be allowed, and another 9% said only to save a woman's life. Everybody else...is somewhere in the middle.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

I agree about paid parental leave and onsite child care; that would be a worthwhile national investment in supporting families and parents.

I don't agree that birth control treats "pregnancy as the problem." Most women don't use birth control to avoid pregnancy altogether. They use it to control the number of children they have and to time their pregnancies so children are spaced far apart, so pregnancy doesn't interrupt their education, and so they are capable of supporting the children they have in the way they wish to do that, which may include private school, college, taking a break from work to stay home for a few years, etc.

Although I know lots of women who have done it, including one woman who came into law school with an eight-week old infant and a 2-year-old son and had a third son right before earning her J.D. (and still graduated Order of the Coif--the top 10% of the class), most women would find that daunting, and some might not have spouses who pitched in enough to make what she did possible.

The only 'problem" pregnancies are those that are unplanned and occur with women who are not economically capable of supporting a child. Not all women have spouses capable of supporting a family on a single income. Pregnancies have occurred and always will occur out of wedlock. While some women have parents who help support them and a child when an unplanned pregnancy occurs (I have 2 friends whose pregnant daughters moved back in with them to have a baby, and they are now helping to raise their grandchildren, but both of these couples are middle-class homeowners of means), many women don' have that support available.

Making birth control available to women and educating them about it is sensible, especially in this day and time. I find it especially baffling when those who oppose abortion under any circumstance also oppose promoting reliable birth control as a better option for women who (as is their right in a free country) decide to be sexually active out of wedlock.

Trying to control the behavior of people who don't share your religious beliefs by limiting their options by law should be a non-starter in a country where separation of church and state is a core value.

---

That's not how separation of church and state works. It's not a trump card.

---

How do you think separation of church and state works?

---

Policies win or lose on their merits, not because they are or are not endorsed by a church. The prohibition of stealing isn't a non-starter just because it's in the Bible.

---

Neither is the prohibition on killing. Most societies on the planet agree that murder and torture are wrong, even if their societies sanction it under some circumstances (like honor killings of Islamic women).

There are certain moral standards almost everyone agrees with. Murder and stealing both fit in that category.

My argument is simply that the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of Catholics, don't support legal prohibitions on birth control. https://www.pewforum.org/2016/09/28/where-the-public-stands-on-religious-liberty-vs-nondiscrimination/

A majority of Americans support abortion rights. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730758875/poll-shows-most-americans-support-abortion-rights-but-with-some-limitations

Here's an excerpt from that story:

So the bottom line is that most Americans favor legal abortion in some cases and not in others. And most people - 77% - say the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade. Just 13% say it should be overturned. So where people differ is in the particulars. In this poll, 18% said abortion should be legal at any time during pregnancy. Nine percent said it should never be allowed, and another 9% said only to save a woman's life. Everybody else...is somewhere in the middle.

---

Sometimes the majority is right, and sometimes not. Most people probably believe birth control and abortion level the playing field for women. They might feel differently if they understood that in many ways this isn't true. It may be easier for women to compete in the job market, and this is one thing to consider. But there are many unintended consequences. What women gain in freedom during their twenties comes at a cost during their child-rearing years. Marrying later gives men an advantage and makes it harder to find good husbands. The price of family investments like housing rises with the increase in two-income households, which takes resources that would otherwise be used for children. Men have more opportunities for infidelity, often leading to divorce, which deprives women of irreplaceable years invested in a marriage. More children grow up without fathers, which leads to poverty and crime. Is it all worth it just so women can participate equally in the capitalist rat race? A lot of data suggest otherwise, as women of all demographic groups report declining happiness both absolutely and relative to men.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

How do you think separation of church and state works?

---

Policies win or lose on their merits, not because they are or are not endorsed by a church. The prohibition of stealing isn't a non-starter just because it's in the Bible.

---

Neither is the prohibition on killing. Most societies on the planet agree that murder and torture are wrong, even if their societies sanction it under some circumstances (like honor killings of Islamic women).

There are certain moral standards almost everyone agrees with. Murder and stealing both fit in that category.

My argument is simply that the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of Catholics, don't support legal prohibitions on birth control. https://www.pewforum.org/2016/09/28/where-the-public-stands-on-religious-liberty-vs-nondiscrimination/

A majority of Americans support abortion rights. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730758875/poll-shows-most-americans-support-abortion-rights-but-with-some-limitations

Here's an excerpt from that story:

So the bottom line is that most Americans favor legal abortion in some cases and not in others. And most people - 77% - say the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade. Just 13% say it should be overturned. So where people differ is in the particulars. In this poll, 18% said abortion should be legal at any time during pregnancy. Nine percent said it should never be allowed, and another 9% said only to save a woman's life. Everybody else...is somewhere in the middle.

---

Sometimes the majority is right, and sometimes not. Most people probably believe birth control and abortion level the playing field for women. They might feel differently if they understood that in many ways this isn't true. It may be easier for women to compete in the job market, and this is one thing to consider. But there are many unintended consequences. What women gain in freedom during their twenties comes at a cost during their child-rearing years. Marrying later gives men an advantage and makes it harder to find good husbands. The price of family investments like housing rises with the increase in two-income households, which takes resources that would otherwise be used for children. Men have more opportunities for infidelity, often leading to divorce, which deprives women of irreplaceable years invested in a marriage. More children grow up without fathers, which leads to poverty and crime. Is it all worth it just so women can participate equally in the capitalist rat race? A lot of data suggest otherwise, as women of all demographic groups report declining happiness both absolutely and relative to men.

---

First, you appear to be looking at women from an extremely functional perspective that views them as walking uteruses with a societal duty to start procreating in their 20s (or perhaps even their teens) rather than as individuals with functioning brains who might wish to decide for themselves what they'd like to do with their lives (not to mention their bodies).

I'm not sure how "marrying later" (I assume you mean women choosing to marry later) "gives men an advantage." In what way? And how-so?

Do you think every decision people of either sex make may should be predecated on maximizing their ability to procreate?

Do you consider procreation a sacred duty that women must assume whether they feel called to bear children or not?

You also present a parade of horribles that does not appear to connect in any way with the availability of contraception controlled by women or used by men. For example, if women use contraception and it works, how are more children growing up without fathers?

How is does the use of contraception promote divorce in the case of either sex? It seems to me that the opposite would be true: Not using contraception would promote divorce, if one partner or the other decided to forego relations because having a child (or having yet another child) was not a good option for whatever reason. We had neighbors who got divorced because the husband didn't want children, agreed reluctantly to have one child with his wife, and then didn't want more. "One and done," he told her. She was a Catholic from a big family and wanted at least 3 children. She remarried and had 2 more children; he never remarried.

You also appear to ascribe all of the horribles to working women who use contraception, delay marriage, and either limit the size of their families or forego children altogether. But what's stopping men from opting out "of the capitalist rat race" if their partner is eager to work and the couple decides having one parent at home with the children is a priority? If 'the capitalist rat race" is so undesirable for women, why is it good for men? Why don't men want to opt out--or, at the very least, reform it so there are fewer rats and the race itself is less of a gruel? IMO, those reforms are more likely to happen with women participating as equal partners than if they are consigned to home and the possibility of pregnancy during their prime years.

Finally, while you're right about the majority not always being right (Trump is a good example of that, IMO, and so is our stance on climate change), we live in a democracy where, in theory, the people and policies who get the most votes win. Do you seriously have hope that, when the Catholic Church can barely convince 10% of its U.S. congregants to adopt its stance proscribing the use of what the church terms "artificial birth control," your view will ever prevail?

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

How do you think separation of church and state works?

---

Policies win or lose on their merits, not because they are or are not endorsed by a church. The prohibition of stealing isn't a non-starter just because it's in the Bible.

---

Neither is the prohibition on killing. Most societies on the planet agree that murder and torture are wrong, even if their societies sanction it under some circumstances (like honor killings of Islamic women).

There are certain moral standards almost everyone agrees with. Murder and stealing both fit in that category.

My argument is simply that the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of Catholics, don't support legal prohibitions on birth control. https://www.pewforum.org/2016/09/28/where-the-public-stands-on-religious-liberty-vs-nondiscrimination/

A majority of Americans support abortion rights. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730758875/poll-shows-most-americans-support-abortion-rights-but-with-some-limitations

Here's an excerpt from that story:

So the bottom line is that most Americans favor legal abortion in some cases and not in others. And most people - 77% - say the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade. Just 13% say it should be overturned. So where people differ is in the particulars. In this poll, 18% said abortion should be legal at any time during pregnancy. Nine percent said it should never be allowed, and another 9% said only to save a woman's life. Everybody else...is somewhere in the middle.

---

Sometimes the majority is right, and sometimes not. Most people probably believe birth control and abortion level the playing field for women. They might feel differently if they understood that in many ways this isn't true. It may be easier for women to compete in the job market, and this is one thing to consider. But there are many unintended consequences. What women gain in freedom during their twenties comes at a cost during their child-rearing years. Marrying later gives men an advantage and makes it harder to find good husbands. The price of family investments like housing rises with the increase in two-income households, which takes resources that would otherwise be used for children. Men have more opportunities for infidelity, often leading to divorce, which deprives women of irreplaceable years invested in a marriage. More children grow up without fathers, which leads to poverty and crime. Is it all worth it just so women can participate equally in the capitalist rat race? A lot of data suggest otherwise, as women of all demographic groups report declining happiness both absolutely and relative to men.

---

First, you appear to be looking at women from an extremely functional perspective that views them as walking uteruses with a societal duty to start procreating in their 20s (or perhaps even their teens) rather than as individuals with functioning brains who might wish to decide for themselves what they'd like to do with their lives (not to mention their bodies).

I'm not sure how "marrying later" (I assume you mean women choosing to marry later) "gives men an advantage." In what way? And how-so?

Do you think every decision people of either sex make may should be predecated on maximizing their ability to procreate?

Do you consider procreation a sacred duty that women must assume whether they feel called to bear children or not?

You also present a parade of horribles that does not appear to connect in any way with the availability of contraception controlled by women or used by men. For example, if women use contraception and it works, how are more children growing up without fathers?

How is does the use of contraception promote divorce in the case of either sex? It seems to me that the opposite would be true: Not using contraception would promote divorce, if one partner or the other decided to forego relations because having a child (or having yet another child) was not a good option for whatever reason. We had neighbors who got divorced because the husband didn't want children, agreed reluctantly to have one child with his wife, and then didn't want more. "One and done," he told her. She was a Catholic from a big family and wanted at least 3 children. She remarried and had 2 more children; he never remarried.

You also appear to ascribe all of the horribles to working women who use contraception, delay marriage, and either limit the size of their families or forego children altogether. But what's stopping men from opting out "of the capitalist rat race" if their partner is eager to work and the couple decides having one parent at home with the children is a priority? If 'the capitalist rat race" is so undesirable for women, why is it good for men? Why don't men want to opt out--or, at the very least, reform it so there are fewer rats and the race itself is less of a gruel? IMO, those reforms are more likely to happen with women participating as equal partners than if they are consigned to home and the possibility of pregnancy during their prime years.

Finally, while you're right about the majority not always being right (Trump is a good example of that, IMO, and so is our stance on climate change), we live in a democracy where, in theory, the people and policies who get the most votes win. Do you seriously have hope that, when the Catholic Church can barely convince 10% of its U.S. congregants to adopt its stance proscribing the use of what the church terms "artificial birth control," your view will ever prevail?

---

Most women want to have children. The point is that we're making it harder instead of easier. Birth rates are declining in part because women are having fewer children than they wish.

Women have more incentive to marry early because their fertility is limited by time and their risk is greater in case of unplanned pregnancy. Normally they achieve this by linking marriage and sex in a single negotiation, so to speak. Either they avoid premarital sex, or they have sex with the understanding that marriage is expected in the event of pregnancy.

The Pill changed this dynamic quite drastically. By reducing the risk of unplanned pregnancy, it made sex without commitment possible. Sex and marriage were no longer linked; instead they became two separate markets. Because of the above mentioned incentives, men tended toward the sex market while women tended toward the marriage market. Marriageable men became fewer and enjoyed more bargaining power.

The results have been bad for women and children in many ways. Premarital sex went from being risky to being more or less a standard expectation, but the risks never disappear entirely. Contraception inevitably fails. Because women are solely responsible for their own fertility, men are no longer expected to commit. More children are born out of wedlock and raised by a single parent.

Even when a woman marries, the competition doesn't stop. Just as the Pill enabled premarital sex, it does the same for extramarital sex. It's mostly the men who benefit from the increased opportunities, since younger women are more attracted to older, married lovers than are young men. If this weren't enough, we now know that the Pill interferes at a chemical level with a woman's ability to bond with her mate. More infidelity obviously leads to more divorce. Divorced women have more difficulty remarrying than divorced men.

Men can't opt out of the rat race for the same reason women can't. They're equally constrained by an economy built around two-income families. Besides, most mothers prefer to stay home.

The question isn't whether my view will prevail. The question is with whom it will prevail. If Catholics and mainstream Protestants don't reproduce, someone else will. Based on current trends, traditionalist groups like the Amish will be a majority by the end of the next century. Liberalism as it's known today will be a distant memory, at best. I hope to keep some of my own religious and cultural heritage alive, but life goes on either way.

BaylorFTW said:

---

If you had a daughter, how would you advise her in this area?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

How do you think separation of church and state works?

---

Policies win or lose on their merits, not because they are or are not endorsed by a church. The prohibition of stealing isn't a non-starter just because it's in the Bible.

---

Neither is the prohibition on killing. Most societies on the planet agree that murder and torture are wrong, even if their societies sanction it under some circumstances (like honor killings of Islamic women).

There are certain moral standards almost everyone agrees with. Murder and stealing both fit in that category.

My argument is simply that the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of Catholics, don't support legal prohibitions on birth control. https://www.pewforum.org/2016/09/28/where-the-public-stands-on-religious-liberty-vs-nondiscrimination/

A majority of Americans support abortion rights. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730758875/poll-shows-most-americans-support-abortion-rights-but-with-some-limitations

Here's an excerpt from that story:

So the bottom line is that most Americans favor legal abortion in some cases and not in others. And most people - 77% - say the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade. Just 13% say it should be overturned. So where people differ is in the particulars. In this poll, 18% said abortion should be legal at any time during pregnancy. Nine percent said it should never be allowed, and another 9% said only to save a woman's life. Everybody else...is somewhere in the middle.

---

Sometimes the majority is right, and sometimes not. Most people probably believe birth control and abortion level the playing field for women. They might feel differently if they understood that in many ways this isn't true. It may be easier for women to compete in the job market, and this is one thing to consider. But there are many unintended consequences. What women gain in freedom during their twenties comes at a cost during their child-rearing years. Marrying later gives men an advantage and makes it harder to find good husbands. The price of family investments like housing rises with the increase in two-income households, which takes resources that would otherwise be used for children. Men have more opportunities for infidelity, often leading to divorce, which deprives women of irreplaceable years invested in a marriage. More children grow up without fathers, which leads to poverty and crime. Is it all worth it just so women can participate equally in the capitalist rat race? A lot of data suggest otherwise, as women of all demographic groups report declining happiness both absolutely and relative to men.

---

First, you appear to be looking at women from an extremely functional perspective that views them as walking uteruses with a societal duty to start procreating in their 20s (or perhaps even their teens) rather than as individuals with functioning brains who might wish to decide for themselves what they'd like to do with their lives (not to mention their bodies).

I'm not sure how "marrying later" (I assume you mean women choosing to marry later) "gives men an advantage." In what way? And how-so?

Do you think every decision people of either sex make may should be predecated on maximizing their ability to procreate?

Do you consider procreation a sacred duty that women must assume whether they feel called to bear children or not?

You also present a parade of horribles that does not appear to connect in any way with the availability of contraception controlled by women or used by men. For example, if women use contraception and it works, how are more children growing up without fathers?

How is does the use of contraception promote divorce in the case of either sex? It seems to me that the opposite would be true: Not using contraception would promote divorce, if one partner or the other decided to forego relations because having a child (or having yet another child) was not a good option for whatever reason. We had neighbors who got divorced because the husband didn't want children, agreed reluctantly to have one child with his wife, and then didn't want more. "One and done," he told her. She was a Catholic from a big family and wanted at least 3 children. She remarried and had 2 more children; he never remarried.

You also appear to ascribe all of the horribles to working women who use contraception, delay marriage, and either limit the size of their families or forego children altogether. But what's stopping men from opting out "of the capitalist rat race" if their partner is eager to work and the couple decides having one parent at home with the children is a priority? If 'the capitalist rat race" is so undesirable for women, why is it good for men? Why don't men want to opt out--or, at the very least, reform it so there are fewer rats and the race itself is less of a gruel? IMO, those reforms are more likely to happen with women participating as equal partners than if they are consigned to home and the possibility of pregnancy during their prime years.

Finally, while you're right about the majority not always being right (Trump is a good example of that, IMO, and so is our stance on climate change), we live in a democracy where, in theory, the people and policies who get the most votes win. Do you seriously have hope that, when the Catholic Church can barely convince 10% of its U.S. congregants to adopt its stance proscribing the use of what the church terms "artificial birth control," your view will ever prevail?

---

Most women want to have children. The point is that we're making it harder instead of easier. Birth rates are declining in part because women are having fewer children than they wish.

Women have more incentive to marry early because their fertility is limited by time and their risk is greater in case of unplanned pregnancy. Normally they achieve this by linking marriage and sex in a single negotiation, so to speak. Either they avoid premarital sex, or they have sex with the understanding that marriage is expected in the event of pregnancy.

The Pill changed this dynamic quite drastically. By reducing the risk of unplanned pregnancy, it made sex without commitment possible. Sex and marriage were no longer linked; instead they became two separate markets. Because of the above mentioned incentives, men tended toward the sex market while women tended toward the marriage market. Marriageable men became fewer and enjoyed more bargaining power.

The results have been bad for women and children in many ways. Premarital sex went from being risky to being more or less a standard expectation, but the risks never disappear entirely. Contraception inevitably fails. Because women are solely responsible for their own fertility, men are no longer expected to commit. More children are born out of wedlock and raised by a single parent.

Even when a woman marries, the competition doesn't stop. Just as the Pill enabled premarital sex, it does the same for extramarital sex. It's mostly the men who benefit from the increased opportunities, since younger women are more attracted to older, married lovers than are young men. If this weren't enough, we now know that the Pill interferes at a chemical level with a woman's ability to bond with her mate. More infidelity obviously leads to more divorce. Divorced women have more difficulty remarrying than divorced men.

Men can't opt out of the rat race for the same reason women can't. They're equally constrained by an economy built around two-income families. Besides, most mothers prefer to stay home.

The question isn't whether my view will prevail. The question is with whom it will prevail. If Catholics and mainstream Protestants don't reproduce, someone else will. Based on current trends, traditionalist groups like the Amish will be a majority by the end of the next century. Liberalism as it's known today will be a distant memory, at best. I hope to keep some of my own religious and cultural heritage alive, but life goes on either way.

---

"The pill" (which is now lots of different hormonal contraception methods in addition to pills) does not "interfere at a chemical level with a woman's ability to bond with her mate." That's junk science.

And how do you know that "most women want children." I know many who didn't/don't. Why should their fertility or lack therof be anyone's business but theirs?

The "transactional" version of marriage you present here--the man gets sex in exchange for marrying the woman because,she won't engage in sex without a permanent commitment if sex always involves the risk of pregancy--is pretty grim for women.. Who wants to marry a guy who is marrying you primarily for sex--especially since, if you don't use contraception, you'll either say no a lot or end up with a family of Mormon proportions. We're almost 50 years past the world you envision, and that's a good thing.

Finally, anyone is free to choose to live by the doctrines of the Catholic Church re: contraception. But most Catholics don't. And most other churches don't share the view that the availability of contraception is evil and has somehow subverted the natural order, where women are effectively forced to abstain from sex outside of marriage because they assume all of the risk of pregnancy. The higher risk factor for women hasn't changed, but it is lower than it was before better methods of contraception..

Jinx 2 said:

---

This research says its focus is "the link between premarital sex and marital stability" but appears to focus only on premarital sex engaged in by women.

Would the results be different if premarital sex engaged in by both partners was studied?

There's the old poem:

Hogamus, higamus,
Men are polygamous.
Higamus, hogamus,
Women monogamous.

But, in my observation (as someone married 38 years), some people of both genders are monogamous by nature, happy to find a life partner to whom they are loyal and faithful, and others aren't. So I wonder if the higher divorce rates ascribed in this study to women with more partners before marriage simply reflect that women with more partners before marriage are more likely to seek more partners throughout life, whether or not they marry. And if the same might be true for men if their premarital and post-marital sexual involvement were studied?

---

Good post

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

How do you think separation of church and state works?

---

Policies win or lose on their merits, not because they are or are not endorsed by a church. The prohibition of stealing isn't a non-starter just because it's in the Bible.

---

Neither is the prohibition on killing. Most societies on the planet agree that murder and torture are wrong, even if their societies sanction it under some circumstances (like honor killings of Islamic women).

There are certain moral standards almost everyone agrees with. Murder and stealing both fit in that category.

My argument is simply that the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of Catholics, don't support legal prohibitions on birth control. https://www.pewforum.org/2016/09/28/where-the-public-stands-on-religious-liberty-vs-nondiscrimination/

A majority of Americans support abortion rights. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730758875/poll-shows-most-americans-support-abortion-rights-but-with-some-limitations

Here's an excerpt from that story:

So the bottom line is that most Americans favor legal abortion in some cases and not in others. And most people - 77% - say the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade. Just 13% say it should be overturned. So where people differ is in the particulars. In this poll, 18% said abortion should be legal at any time during pregnancy. Nine percent said it should never be allowed, and another 9% said only to save a woman's life. Everybody else...is somewhere in the middle.

---

Sometimes the majority is right, and sometimes not. Most people probably believe birth control and abortion level the playing field for women. They might feel differently if they understood that in many ways this isn't true. It may be easier for women to compete in the job market, and this is one thing to consider. But there are many unintended consequences. What women gain in freedom during their twenties comes at a cost during their child-rearing years. Marrying later gives men an advantage and makes it harder to find good husbands. The price of family investments like housing rises with the increase in two-income households, which takes resources that would otherwise be used for children. Men have more opportunities for infidelity, often leading to divorce, which deprives women of irreplaceable years invested in a marriage. More children grow up without fathers, which leads to poverty and crime. Is it all worth it just so women can participate equally in the capitalist rat race? A lot of data suggest otherwise, as women of all demographic groups report declining happiness both absolutely and relative to men.

---

First, you appear to be looking at women from an extremely functional perspective that views them as walking uteruses with a societal duty to start procreating in their 20s (or perhaps even their teens) rather than as individuals with functioning brains who might wish to decide for themselves what they'd like to do with their lives (not to mention their bodies).

I'm not sure how "marrying later" (I assume you mean women choosing to marry later) "gives men an advantage." In what way? And how-so?

Do you think every decision people of either sex make may should be predecated on maximizing their ability to procreate?

Do you consider procreation a sacred duty that women must assume whether they feel called to bear children or not?

You also present a parade of horribles that does not appear to connect in any way with the availability of contraception controlled by women or used by men. For example, if women use contraception and it works, how are more children growing up without fathers?

How is does the use of contraception promote divorce in the case of either sex? It seems to me that the opposite would be true: Not using contraception would promote divorce, if one partner or the other decided to forego relations because having a child (or having yet another child) was not a good option for whatever reason. We had neighbors who got divorced because the husband didn't want children, agreed reluctantly to have one child with his wife, and then didn't want more. "One and done," he told her. She was a Catholic from a big family and wanted at least 3 children. She remarried and had 2 more children; he never remarried.

You also appear to ascribe all of the horribles to working women who use contraception, delay marriage, and either limit the size of their families or forego children altogether. But what's stopping men from opting out "of the capitalist rat race" if their partner is eager to work and the couple decides having one parent at home with the children is a priority? If 'the capitalist rat race" is so undesirable for women, why is it good for men? Why don't men want to opt out--or, at the very least, reform it so there are fewer rats and the race itself is less of a gruel? IMO, those reforms are more likely to happen with women participating as equal partners than if they are consigned to home and the possibility of pregnancy during their prime years.

Finally, while you're right about the majority not always being right (Trump is a good example of that, IMO, and so is our stance on climate change), we live in a democracy where, in theory, the people and policies who get the most votes win. Do you seriously have hope that, when the Catholic Church can barely convince 10% of its U.S. congregants to adopt its stance proscribing the use of what the church terms "artificial birth control," your view will ever prevail?

---

Most women want to have children. The point is that we're making it harder instead of easier. Birth rates are declining in part because women are having fewer children than they wish.

Women have more incentive to marry early because their fertility is limited by time and their risk is greater in case of unplanned pregnancy. Normally they achieve this by linking marriage and sex in a single negotiation, so to speak. Either they avoid premarital sex, or they have sex with the understanding that marriage is expected in the event of pregnancy.

The Pill changed this dynamic quite drastically. By reducing the risk of unplanned pregnancy, it made sex without commitment possible. Sex and marriage were no longer linked; instead they became two separate markets. Because of the above mentioned incentives, men tended toward the sex market while women tended toward the marriage market. Marriageable men became fewer and enjoyed more bargaining power.

The results have been bad for women and children in many ways. Premarital sex went from being risky to being more or less a standard expectation, but the risks never disappear entirely. Contraception inevitably fails. Because women are solely responsible for their own fertility, men are no longer expected to commit. More children are born out of wedlock and raised by a single parent.

Even when a woman marries, the competition doesn't stop. Just as the Pill enabled premarital sex, it does the same for extramarital sex. It's mostly the men who benefit from the increased opportunities, since younger women are more attracted to older, married lovers than are young men. If this weren't enough, we now know that the Pill interferes at a chemical level with a woman's ability to bond with her mate. More infidelity obviously leads to more divorce. Divorced women have more difficulty remarrying than divorced men.

Men can't opt out of the rat race for the same reason women can't. They're equally constrained by an economy built around two-income families. Besides, most mothers prefer to stay home.

The question isn't whether my view will prevail. The question is with whom it will prevail. If Catholics and mainstream Protestants don't reproduce, someone else will. Based on current trends, traditionalist groups like the Amish will be a majority by the end of the next century. Liberalism as it's known today will be a distant memory, at best. I hope to keep some of my own religious and cultural heritage alive, but life goes on either way.

---

"The pill" (which is now lots of different hormonal contraception methods in addition to pills) does not "interfere at a chemical level with a woman's ability to bond with her mate." That's junk science.

And how do you know that "most women want children." I know many who didn't/don't. Why should their fertility or lack therof be anyone's business but theirs?

The "transactional" version of marriage you present here--the man gets sex in exchange for marrying the woman because,she won't engage in sex without a permanent commitment if sex always involves the risk of pregancy--is pretty grim for women.. Who wants to marry a guy who is marrying you primarily for sex--especially since, if you don't use contraception, you'll either say no a lot or end up with a family of Mormon proportions. We're almost 50 years past the world you envision, and that's a good thing.

Finally, anyone is free to choose to live by the doctrines of the Catholic Church re: contraception. But most Catholics don't. And most other churches don't share the view that the availability of contraception is evil and has somehow subverted the natural order, where women are effectively forced to abstain from sex outside of marriage because they assume all of the risk of pregnancy. The higher risk factor for women hasn't changed, but it is lower than it was before better methods of contraception..

---

I'll go with Scientific American on the science unless you have some other information. We know most women want children because polls like Gallup and the General Social Survey have been asking them since the early 1970s. Also because most of them do in fact have children.

There are lots of ways to talk about marriage - anthropologically, historically, theologically, poetically, etc. None of these "versions" exclude or negate the others. What I'm presenting is just an economic and biological view of the incentives that affect relationships. It doesn't mean that people don't marry for love, or that men are obsessed with sex, or that women can think of nothing but marriage. People are more complex than that. They're also governed by certain realities, as much today as 50 years ago.

You're still missing an important distinction when you say the risk of pregnancy is lower with contraception. The risk that you'll get pregnant is lower. The risk when you get pregnant is much higher. We've made the choice as a culture and as a society to shift the risk away from uncommitted sex and onto motherhood. We've done this because we're convinced that abstinence outside of marriage is an intolerable burden. But that choice comes with certain consequences. We get more of what we reward and less of what we punish.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have not seen anyone "demonize, ridicule and put down those who live more Godly lives."

---

I find this very hard to believe. You ever heard of The Handmaid's Tale? You ever heard of the excessive coverage regarding pedophilia in The Catholic Church. How are Christians portrayed in Hollywood movies? I was just reading yesterday about some liberal nuts were upset because a Christian was putting up signs about the need for prayer on private property. They tried to smear her saying she didn't care about shootings. Have you ever read books or interviews by The New Atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins who give license to their audiences to belittle and insult Christians. I am astounded that you have made this claim.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have seen a backlash against people who wish to impose religiously-based beliefs about homosexuality--beliefs that aren't uniformly shared by Christians (my own church, United Methodist, is very divided on this issue; my former church, the Episcopal Church, now ordains gay priests)--abortion and contraception, attempting to impose their beliefs on all Americans with the force of law. In a "free" country where separation of church and state is a core value, people should be free to decide who to marry and to make personal decisions about their own bodies without having the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans imposed on them with the force of law.

---

Church teaching on the topic of homosexuality has been clear for almost 2000 years. With abortion, it has been clear for say 1500 years and with contraception this is a newer phenomenon but given Christians believe in the sanctity of life, it's position has not been surprising. All you have done is merely highlight how secular views have infiltrated the Church. And there have been plenty of folks who have vilified the Church over these positions in recent times.

---

Not all churches agree that homosexuality is a sin. Not all churches believe in biblical inerrancy. Even fewer churches believe in the inerrancy of the Church's current leadership. Although that's part of Catholic doctrine, the Catholics I know often disagree with the current papal stance on various issues.

There's also not unanimity of opinion even in churches where leadership has taken the position that homosexuality is a sin. One Catholic colleague just said this week that the priest of her parish would never preach against homosexuality, because her congregation, which includes gay members, would be offended by such preaching. She believes he was assigned to her church because his "liberal" views aligned with those of her congregation. My church, the United Methodist, is divided on this issue, with more American congregations supporting ordination of openly gay ministers, but the church as a whole opposing it because of conservative congregations in Africa, where there's not just a religious, but also a cultural taboo against homosexuality.

While churches and their leadership can decide how to interpret the Bible and what is and is not a sin that disqualifies someone for fellowship and even salvation, the law has a different purpose. In a nation with separation of church and state where personal freedom is valued so highly that we won't restrict the sale of assault weapons and ammo, our laws should not tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. If you believe abortion is a sin, then you also believe a woman who has an abortion will be punished for that sin, during life and possibly with eternal damnation. Don't you trust God to deal with sinners, including homosexuals and women who seek abortions, whether they are married or not?

Even if you don't, we can't write laws to stop people from sinning; that certainly didn't work for the Jews! That's one of the reasons God sent Jesus: To establish the highest laws: Love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you." If more churches focused on those ethics and prayed for people they view as sinners rather than condemning them, churches would have more members and be an increasing, rather than declining, societal influence.

Neither should laws be tailored to accommodate the most conservative religious beliefs among us. Were that the case, women's access to education and jobs would still be severely restricted, as they were until less than a century ago.

---

I'm not interested in punishment. Abortion laws have hardly ever punished the women who sought abortions. But it's a serious mistake to think that laws regarding sexuality are only tailored to religious beliefs and don't have a practical, secular purpose. Few things are more important to society than the well-being of the family.

---

Do you think there is broad societal agreement on what constitutes a family for the purposes of laws intended to promote and preserve the "well-being of the family"?

For example, we have old friends, a gay couple, who adopted two children from the foster care system. One was an infant they fostered for almost a year; the other was his younger sister (who likely had a different father).

Their children are now teenagers and enjoying what I would consider a comfortable, stable middle-class life with 2 conscientious parents who have been committed to each other for 31 years now and who married as soon as that became a legal option for them. Both parents have professional jobs; one is an ordained minister in the Disciples of Christ, having left the United Methodist Church because that church would not ordain openly gay ministers.

Should society outlaw their marriage and their family because a minority of Ameicans have religious objections to their sexual relationship and orientation? Should their children be removed from their home and placed with a male/female couple if one can be found willing to adopt 2 teenagers?

---

I think there's broad agreement within the human species as to what constitutes a family. Some societies have experimented with institutionalizing homosexuality, but the result is never really an assimilation of same-sex relationships to the traditional form. Instead what they end up with is a dual set of relationship models with very different customs and purposes. Motherhood is devalued, while heterosexual marriage becomes less about companionship and more about the perfunctory generation of offspring.

I would give preference in adoption to male/female couples, but I don't think it would be fair to remove the children in the situation you describe. Not every arrangement can be ideal.

---

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states

THE BROAD BENEFITS OF CONTRACEPTIVE USE

• Women and couples use contraceptives to have healthier pregnancies, to help time and space births, and to achieve their desired family size.18
• Family planning has well-documented health benefits for mothers, newborns, families and communities. Pregnancies that occur too early or too late in a woman's life and those that are spaced too closely negatively affect maternal health and increase the risk of low birth weight.19
• The ability to delay and space childbearing is crucial to women's social and economic advancement. Women's ability to obtain and effectively use contraceptives has a positive impact on their education and workforce participation, as well as on subsequent outcomes related to income, family stability, mental health and happiness, and children's well-being. However, the evidence suggests that the most disadvantaged U.S. women do not fully share in these benefits, which is why unintended pregnancy prevention efforts need to be grounded in broader antipoverty and social justice efforts.20
• Many hormonal methodsthe pill, vaginal ring, patch, implant and IUDoffer a number of health benefits in addition to contraceptive effectiveness, such as treatment for excessive menstrual bleeding, menstrual pain and acne.21
• In 2015, the most common reason women aged 1824 gave for using the pill was to prevent pregnancy (93%); however, 70% of pill users also cited noncontraceptive health benefits as reasons for use.21 Some 7% of pill users aged 1824 relied on the method for exclusively noncontraceptive purposes.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have not seen anyone "demonize, ridicule and put down those who live more Godly lives."

---

I find this very hard to believe. You ever heard of The Handmaid's Tale? You ever heard of the excessive coverage regarding pedophilia in The Catholic Church. How are Christians portrayed in Hollywood movies? I was just reading yesterday about some liberal nuts were upset because a Christian was putting up signs about the need for prayer on private property. They tried to smear her saying she didn't care about shootings. Have you ever read books or interviews by The New Atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins who give license to their audiences to belittle and insult Christians. I am astounded that you have made this claim.

Jinx 2 said:

---

I have seen a backlash against people who wish to impose religiously-based beliefs about homosexuality--beliefs that aren't uniformly shared by Christians (my own church, United Methodist, is very divided on this issue; my former church, the Episcopal Church, now ordains gay priests)--abortion and contraception, attempting to impose their beliefs on all Americans with the force of law. In a "free" country where separation of church and state is a core value, people should be free to decide who to marry and to make personal decisions about their own bodies without having the religious beliefs of a minority of Americans imposed on them with the force of law.

---

Church teaching on the topic of homosexuality has been clear for almost 2000 years. With abortion, it has been clear for say 1500 years and with contraception this is a newer phenomenon but given Christians believe in the sanctity of life, it's position has not been surprising. All you have done is merely highlight how secular views have infiltrated the Church. And there have been plenty of folks who have vilified the Church over these positions in recent times.

---

Not all churches agree that homosexuality is a sin. Not all churches believe in biblical inerrancy. Even fewer churches believe in the inerrancy of the Church's current leadership. Although that's part of Catholic doctrine, the Catholics I know often disagree with the current papal stance on various issues.

There's also not unanimity of opinion even in churches where leadership has taken the position that homosexuality is a sin. One Catholic colleague just said this week that the priest of her parish would never preach against homosexuality, because her congregation, which includes gay members, would be offended by such preaching. She believes he was assigned to her church because his "liberal" views aligned with those of her congregation. My church, the United Methodist, is divided on this issue, with more American congregations supporting ordination of openly gay ministers, but the church as a whole opposing it because of conservative congregations in Africa, where there's not just a religious, but also a cultural taboo against homosexuality.

While churches and their leadership can decide how to interpret the Bible and what is and is not a sin that disqualifies someone for fellowship and even salvation, the law has a different purpose. In a nation with separation of church and state where personal freedom is valued so highly that we won't restrict the sale of assault weapons and ammo, our laws should not tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. If you believe abortion is a sin, then you also believe a woman who has an abortion will be punished for that sin, during life and possibly with eternal damnation. Don't you trust God to deal with sinners, including homosexuals and women who seek abortions, whether they are married or not?

Even if you don't, we can't write laws to stop people from sinning; that certainly didn't work for the Jews! That's one of the reasons God sent Jesus: To establish the highest laws: Love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And the ethic of "Treat other people the way you would have them treat you." If more churches focused on those ethics and prayed for people they view as sinners rather than condemning them, churches would have more members and be an increasing, rather than declining, societal influence.

Neither should laws be tailored to accommodate the most conservative religious beliefs among us. Were that the case, women's access to education and jobs would still be severely restricted, as they were until less than a century ago.

---

I'm not interested in punishment. Abortion laws have hardly ever punished the women who sought abortions. But it's a serious mistake to think that laws regarding sexuality are only tailored to religious beliefs and don't have a practical, secular purpose. Few things are more important to society than the well-being of the family.

---

Do you think there is broad societal agreement on what constitutes a family for the purposes of laws intended to promote and preserve the "well-being of the family"?

For example, we have old friends, a gay couple, who adopted two children from the foster care system. One was an infant they fostered for almost a year; the other was his younger sister (who likely had a different father).

Their children are now teenagers and enjoying what I would consider a comfortable, stable middle-class life with 2 conscientious parents who have been committed to each other for 31 years now and who married as soon as that became a legal option for them. Both parents have professional jobs; one is an ordained minister in the Disciples of Christ, having left the United Methodist Church because that church would not ordain openly gay ministers.

Should society outlaw their marriage and their family because a minority of Ameicans have religious objections to their sexual relationship and orientation? Should their children be removed from their home and placed with a male/female couple if one can be found willing to adopt 2 teenagers?

---

I think there's broad agreement within the human species as to what constitutes a family. Some societies have experimented with institutionalizing homosexuality, but the result is never really an assimilation of same-sex relationships to the traditional form. Instead what they end up with is a dual set of relationship models with very different customs and purposes. Motherhood is devalued, while heterosexual marriage becomes less about companionship and more about the perfunctory generation of offspring.

I would give preference in adoption to male/female couples, but I don't think it would be fair to remove the children in the situation you describe. Not every arrangement can be ideal.

---

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states

THE BROAD BENEFITS OF CONTRACEPTIVE USE

• Women and couples use contraceptives to have healthier pregnancies, to help time and space births, and to achieve their desired family size.18
• Family planning has well-documented health benefits for mothers, newborns, families and communities. Pregnancies that occur too early or too late in a woman's life and those that are spaced too closely negatively affect maternal health and increase the risk of low birth weight.19
• The ability to delay and space childbearing is crucial to women's social and economic advancement. Women's ability to obtain and effectively use contraceptives has a positive impact on their education and workforce participation, as well as on subsequent outcomes related to income, family stability, mental health and happiness, and children's well-being. However, the evidence suggests that the most disadvantaged U.S. women do not fully share in these benefits, which is why unintended pregnancy prevention efforts need to be grounded in broader antipoverty and social justice efforts.20
• Many hormonal methodsthe pill, vaginal ring, patch, implant and IUDoffer a number of health benefits in addition to contraceptive effectiveness, such as treatment for excessive menstrual bleeding, menstrual pain and acne.21
• In 2015, the most common reason women aged 1824 gave for using the pill was to prevent pregnancy (93%); however, 70% of pill users also cited noncontraceptive health benefits as reasons for use.21 Some 7% of pill users aged 1824 relied on the method for exclusively noncontraceptive purposes.

---

Again, these are choices. Women can let their work participation depend on birth control, or they can demand paid leave and child care. They can prioritize sexual opportunities, or they can prioritize motherhood. It's all about the world we choose to make.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states

THE BROAD BENEFITS OF CONTRACEPTIVE USE

• Women and couples use contraceptives to have healthier pregnancies, to help time and space births, and to achieve their desired family size.18
• Family planning has well-documented health benefits for mothers, newborns, families and communities. Pregnancies that occur too early or too late in a woman's life and those that are spaced too closely negatively affect maternal health and increase the risk of low birth weight.19
• The ability to delay and space childbearing is crucial to women's social and economic advancement. Women's ability to obtain and effectively use contraceptives has a positive impact on their education and workforce participation, as well as on subsequent outcomes related to income, family stability, mental health and happiness, and children's well-being. However, the evidence suggests that the most disadvantaged U.S. women do not fully share in these benefits, which is why unintended pregnancy prevention efforts need to be grounded in broader antipoverty and social justice efforts.20
• Many hormonal methodsthe pill, vaginal ring, patch, implant and IUDoffer a number of health benefits in addition to contraceptive effectiveness, such as treatment for excessive menstrual bleeding, menstrual pain and acne.21
• In 2015, the most common reason women aged 1824 gave for using the pill was to prevent pregnancy (93%); however, 70% of pill users also cited noncontraceptive health benefits as reasons for use.21 Some 7% of pill users aged 1824 relied on the method for exclusively noncontraceptive purposes.

---

Again, these are choices. Women can let their work participation depend on birth control, or they can demand paid leave and child care. They can prioritize sexual opportunities, or they can prioritize motherhood. It's all about the world we choose to make.

---

You imply that these are either/or choices when some aren't even choices women I know make at all. I don't know any women who "prioritze sexual opportunities" rather than "prioritizing motherhood." I know lots of women who live their lives, love their children, have good marriages and enjoy their works and its fruits. Would they have had more than 2 or 3 children had they NOT pursued career after college? The answer is no.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states

THE BROAD BENEFITS OF CONTRACEPTIVE USE

• Women and couples use contraceptives to have healthier pregnancies, to help time and space births, and to achieve their desired family size.18
• Family planning has well-documented health benefits for mothers, newborns, families and communities. Pregnancies that occur too early or too late in a woman's life and those that are spaced too closely negatively affect maternal health and increase the risk of low birth weight.19
• The ability to delay and space childbearing is crucial to women's social and economic advancement. Women's ability to obtain and effectively use contraceptives has a positive impact on their education and workforce participation, as well as on subsequent outcomes related to income, family stability, mental health and happiness, and children's well-being. However, the evidence suggests that the most disadvantaged U.S. women do not fully share in these benefits, which is why unintended pregnancy prevention efforts need to be grounded in broader antipoverty and social justice efforts.20
• Many hormonal methodsthe pill, vaginal ring, patch, implant and IUDoffer a number of health benefits in addition to contraceptive effectiveness, such as treatment for excessive menstrual bleeding, menstrual pain and acne.21
• In 2015, the most common reason women aged 1824 gave for using the pill was to prevent pregnancy (93%); however, 70% of pill users also cited noncontraceptive health benefits as reasons for use.21 Some 7% of pill users aged 1824 relied on the method for exclusively noncontraceptive purposes.

---

Again, these are choices. Women can let their work participation depend on birth control, or they can demand paid leave and child care. They can prioritize sexual opportunities, or they can prioritize motherhood. It's all about the world we choose to make.

---

You imply that these are either/or choices when some aren't even choices women I know make at all. I don't know any women who "prioritze sexual opportunities" rather than "prioritizing motherhood." I know lots of women who live their lives, love their children, have good marriages and enjoy their works and its fruits. Would they have had more than 2 or 3 children had they NOT pursued career after college? The answer is no.

---

Most women would be very happy with 2 or 3 children. That doesn't explain why they're settling for 1.8.

No one sits down with a list of pros and cons and thinks "Gee, I wonder whether I want birth control or maternal leave?" People do what they do, and what they do reflects their priorities whether deliberately or not.