water said:
I don't understand you. The decision to make is the same with or without contraceptives. Either way, they have to decide about having children. Of course, it is possible to not make this decision and just wait for whatever happens.
I understand your reasoning that not wanting children leads to unwanted children, which are either born and rejected or simply aborted. It makes sense, but it would apply only to absolutes. It's true, if a couple want
no children, and can't stand the thought of having any, then the decision to abort any resulting pregnancy is already made in their minds - they're only delaying that eventuality with contraception.
But most people know that contraception in any form, whether mental (through abstinence and self-control) or physical (through natural or artificial means), is
fallible. So even though they might practice such forms of planning, they are
still prepared to have children. If they are willing to let their love for their own children be diminished, they don't need contraception as an excuse.
That's the difference between wanting
no children, ever (in which case they're only fooling themselves by depending on contraception, and they should rather have themselves sterilized) and simply wanting to plan the timing and amount of children to the best of your abilities. Some people really
do want children, but don't feel ready for them at the time. Then it's not a question of whether they want children or not, just of when and how. They realize they don't have the final say anyway, contraception or not, but they have
some say. (Since nobody knows for certain whether conception will take place,
all children are "unexpected" to an extent).
If you only want confirmation that it's a choice between black and white, I'm afraid you're setting yourself up for disappointment. That would be a choice between celibacy or hedonism, which are personal decisions only you can make. And how they are justified can depend only on your own beliefs, not the beliefs of others.
You don't just entrust your body to anyone, or marry anyone, and hope for the best.
But if you aren't willing to do that, then you can forget about romantic love.
I'm afraid you can only speak for yourself here, since everyone can only speak for their own body.
Everybody has the choice of how much worth
they themselves attach to their bodies. If having sex is more important to someone than discriminating between partners, then obviously their choice of partners will reflect that: it can be bought for that price. But if someone considers his body worth more than any value people could attach to it, no minimal compensation will be enough, and he won't relinquish it to the first "taker" - no matter how desperate he is for approval. Since it's their identity that seeks approval, not just their bodies, they won't be satisified until they are accepted
in totality. But if they are willing to compromise on that, it's their decision. Nobody can force you to be who you don't want to be.
Personally, I don't believe anything less than complete acceptance even counts as romantic love - I would simply call it lust: Two bodies seeking mutual satisfaction while their mind and soul remains distant; not two people in an integrated relationship.
water said:
So they end up having children they didn't want? And accept them as some necessary evil? Or talk themselves into "We didn't really want children, but God sent us this one, so we kept it and we *must* love it ..."?
If they don't want children, and conceive despite contraceptives, that child is then an UNWANTED child. That it has been conceived doesn't somehow magically make it a wanted child.
Few things are as bad as being an unwanted child to parents who "took their chance" and had sex. Lukewarm parents.
You're taking this much too personally. If this has something to do a personal experience you've had, then obviously what I say doesn't apply
for that situation. That doesn't mean it doesn't apply to
any (or even most) situations. Neither of us may generalize.
I've tried to explain my position above. Maybe I'm not using the right words for you to hear me. You are arguing from personal theory to general reality, and I am arguing from personal reality to general theory. My own parents used contraception before they had me, and have used contraception intermittently while having three more children. I don't think any couple could ever love each other more, or that there are four children
on this planet who've been loved more. And I don't have the luxury of calling myself
lucky, since I know exactly what decisions and beliefs were involved. The same goes for most of their family.
So the data I have to work with is this: 1) Contraception isn't an issue, even among the doctors and most health-conscious members of these families - some used it and some preferred not to; 2) They wouldn't consider abortion under any circumstances except certain death, and 3) The love that exists between them and their children are evident for the world to see. As for the effect on their health, I can only say that the only two deaths until now were both my grandfathers, while their wives (who must have used female contraception or some form of birth control, or in 60 years they would have had more than six children) are still alive and well 10 to 20 years later. The rest are all in general good health. For some female members the pill has been contra-indicated, for others the pill has actually been prescribed to correct hormone imbalances.
So you see why I won't pronounce a black or white judgement over it. No unwanted children, no lukewarm parents, no cheap rationalizations. Only love. The shortest marriage among my parents' families is 20 years and going. All have at least four children but no more than six. So this is my conclusion: if love exists and comes foremost, the use of contraception is a secondary issue. No decision made in a loving relationship will force anybody to suffer for it.