Xev said:
(After all, says Paul, how else will those filthy creatures redeem themselves but by spewing children?)
There is no Christian in the world who believes that this passage (1 Tim. 2:15) means women are saved by childbirth, while men are saved by Christ. Nor are women "filthy creatures". The purpose of Paul's letter was to combat false teaching and affirm acceptable behaviour. Many people, including some of Jesus' disciples, thought it was better for people to remain unmarried because of the hardships, frustration and possibility of failure that come with it (Matt. 19:10). Others even forbid people to marry (1 Tim. 4:3), to "save" them from sin. (The pains of childbearing was held to be an indication of sin; Gen. 3:16). But Jesus said this is not always possible, and Paul affirms that women ("Eve") will experience salvation, just like men - who never experience childbirth - "if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
That Paul didn't advocate what you think he does, is easy to prove:
1 Corinthians 7:8-10;28
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
...
But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
Your question is stupid, not only because I was planned to the extreme - my mother tried to have children, could not and was considering medical aid in the process when I was concieved. Further, my point would not be invalidated by my personal experiences.
I've simply noticed a tension between unplanned children and their familes and like water, I've heard the "I'm unplanned" used as the simplest and most obvious answer to family tension.
Your personal experience can still be relevant, for if you weren't "better loved" or experienced less family tension than someone like me, who was unplanned (in the sense that my parents neither particularly planned to have me nor
not have me), your point is moot.
The tension you noticed occurs in all families, and blaming it on a child's circumstances of birth is simply a sign of parental immaturity. Parents can't blame their children for a circumstance that was beyond their control, whether it is that they were planned or that they were unplanned. Referring to such circumstances would be an obvious attempt at self-justification for avoiding responsibility, and then the real question is whether
any circumstances can justify a parent's lack of love, abuse, or even murder. Unless you believe in strict naturalism, like Asguard and Clockwork here, the answer can only be no.
The only way to make an argument that distinguishes between planned and unplanned children, is if you believe the distinction somehow
justifies - and therefore may reasonably determine - parental abuse or apathy. Otherwise any abuse, lack of love, or "tension" based on this distinction, is no
more improper than abuse based on any other unjustified, unreasonable, or arbitrary distinction - such as parents preferring sons over daughters, or blonde hair over brown. The child cannot be made to suffer for it, because he or she is ultimately just as
human as they would have been under the most "ideal" and most pleasing circumstances.