Friday, May 17, 2013

Which cousin would you do without?

Did They Believe in Birth Control?

Asks the question.  My father came from a good Catholic family of 4 boys and 3 girls.   Medium sized for the time.  His mother had more than 30 grandchildren, and several great-grandchildren now.

My Dad had 2 boys, who both had sons, 5 grandchildren.

Who is the worse off?

16 comments:

Bill S said...

I have two sons, one of which is gay and the other who won't marry till he gets out of law school. I have no grandchildren. My parents had three boys and a girl and had 10 grandchildren. I am better off financially. They were better off in terms of enjoying bigger families, although my mother didn't live long enough to see her grandchildren. There are many variables that factor into determining who is better off. Children and grandchildren are only two.

Theodore Seeber said...

Where I, who put far more value on even the life of a child born without a brain, than all of the material wealth in the world, would say the smaller family is infinitely worse off.

Financial wealth is temporary. Family is what sticks.

Bill S said...

There's nothing wrong with smaller families. And there's nothing wrong with someone not wanting a baby without a brain, if that is even possible. Yes. I would like grandchildren but it won't be the end of the world if I don't.

Theodore Seeber said...

So if smaller families are *better*, which of your children should you kill?

Bill S said...

I didn't say that smaller families are better. I just said that there's nothing wrong with having a smaller family. Opponents of birth control would try to tell me that my life is less fulfilling only having two children and no grandchildren. I don't see it that way. I'm ok with having planned my family size and won't feel screwed if I don't have grandchildren.

Theodore Seeber said...

Where I am saying that large families are measurably better- simply because people are worth more than material wealth, always.

Family planning is just eugenics in disguise- a disgusting science that was long ago proven to be false.

Bill S said...

Family planning is eugenics? Seriously? By deciding to have two children, my wife and I were practicing eugenics? Really?

Theodore Seeber said...

The entire idea that large families cause poverty is born out of eugenics. Read some Margaret Sanger, you will soon see where the ideas come from.

But why should you be offended by that? Dawkins is, after all, a eugenicist. Same with lots of famous atheists- Sartre, Nietzsche, Hitchens.

Hmm, when did you say you read _The God Delusion_ again?

Bill S said...

The only point I was trying to make was that planning a family is not the same as practicing eugenics. They both might rely on birth control but one is intended to control the size of one's family and the other is intended to breed away human defects. They are not the same thing.

Theodore Seeber said...

If it isn't, then it seems to me to still be a sad idea- that material wealth is more highly valued than people.

Bill S said...

To you really think its a problem that I only have two kids? How many do you have? There is nothing wrong with my wife having a career which she could go back to after having two planned children. Catholics have to try to condemn people who plan their families because of the Church's ridiculous position on contraception. But it's just living life responsibly.

Theodore Seeber said...

Responsibly? I have only one thanks to trying to live responsibly. We are facing a demographic time bomb thanks to "responsibly".

The lies of the family planners were just more control- talking the unfit into having fewer children and supporting homosexuality in hopes of there being more for the fit supermen.

Bill S said...

So you have one child. And, from what you said sarcastically, you did practice contraception before becoming a devout Catholic. And you still think that eugenics proponents are pushing contraception and homosexuality to breed out the unfit. Got it.

Theodore Seeber said...

Yes, I did. Back in the days when I was an atheist- I used condoms as a form of contraception. It didn't help, because the proper place for sex is in monogamous heterosexual marriage- every other type results in pain, with no children to help you through the pain.

People are more important than material wealth. Material wealth is worthless for producing happiness.

I learned this the hard way. I learned that I am unfit by the standards of the liberal left- even when I was a part of them, I was being rejected. The moral bankruptcy of the generation that produced the sexual revolution is pervasive.

Bill S said...

So you swallowed Catholicism hook, line and sinker. Catholicism relies on the resurrection and ascension being historical facts, not to mention the assumption. No one wants to admit that these are physical impossibilities and no one wants to assume that they are some form of symbolism and not literally true. There are a lot of problems with this line of thinking. So when people who believe all these myths try to tell me that birth control is intrinsically evil, I don't pay any attention to them.

Theodore Seeber said...

There is no such thing in science as a "physical impossibility". I think you mean a "physical improbability".

That psudoendocrine use for birth control is intrinsically evil, you only need to go as far as your local state college biology department; I'm sure they've got *someone* working on the subject of the increasing numbers of intersex frogs and fish (not to mention intersex humans, who seem to have suddenly multiplied in number in the last 60 years- correlation may not be causation, but is it any wonder that maybe birth control, which changes gender hormones, *might* be a cause of malformed gender in human beings?)

No myth needed on that last point, just more education.

Creative Commons License
Oustside The Asylum by Ted Seeber is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at http://outsidetheaustisticasylum.blogspot.com.