Men often don't like to use condoms. Could there perhaps be a few logical reasons, why?
Wow. pronatalist (and others in this thread), you're all fucktards.
Oh wow, such creative name-calling. No respect for our beliefs, or witty observations?
What if you ARE married but aren't financially ready to support children yet?
Then I would welcome children regardless. Why let the government rob us of even our children, by financial trickery? Don't you know what a sham our economy is, and how much it is rigged by communist or globalist under unconstitutional schemes as the Federal Reserve System of manufacturing "inflation" as one of the most unfair "taxes" against the poor? There's even a theory, that the income tax was designed to limit how much wealth Americans could accumulate, lest they become relaxed and let their families grow big, sending our population numbers presumably, through the roof. A population "control" conspiracy theory.
There are critics of the trendy notion, that people should "wait a year" after gettting married, to have children. People are finding that they aren't near so fertile as they feared. Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, I heard him some years ago, blasting away that notion, saying he was only able to have but one child biologically. He also adopted a child I think. But what if they hadn't of waited, but get busy right after marrying. He might have had another child.
Why is it that the more money we seem to have, the
less able people are to "afford" children? That tells me that people have their priorities mixed up. Sure, working a job and money are important these days, but they are co-resquites with having children, not pre-requisites. Thank God, that having children is for all married couples, not merely the elite rich who conveniently often don't want many children. I often think God gives so many children to the poor, because the "rich" don't want them. And yet would you sell your children for money? So the "poor" are often "richer" than the "rich."
Wear a condom and chances are less. I think sex solely for the purpose of having children is just moronic (plus everyone would have 300 children).
Author Mary Pride, says that in countries where "family planning" still is generally not used, that family size is typically around 5 or 6 children. I think that's a bit shy of 300 children. Compared to a smaller "planned" family of 3 or 4 children, I would much rather welcome a "bonus" child or two, than to have to bother with the burden of contraceptives and all their nasty side-effects. And then the "no method" method is the most natural and most elegant, and the most respective of human life and the most pro-life. BTW, I think I read somewhere that Mary Pride herself has 9 children.
Plus, sex before marriage isn't necessarily a bad thing if done correctly (with someone you care for and respect).
The Bible doesn't so trivialize marriage, and says to flee fornication, and thou shalt not commit adultery. If she's not your wife, could she be somebody else's future wife? But I do try to stay more to the philosophic issues, and not merely "preach a sermon." You can find sermons anywhere.
Condoms also protect against STDs, not JUST pregnancy.
Actually they don't. Taking a few more days to spread an STD, is not "safer" sex, it's not "safe," and rather it's promoting false security. Why do we have such a pandemic of STDs and AIDS? Because of all the promiscuity that "free love" contraceptive, fake, medicated sex, has naturally promoted, because contraception itself goes against nature. And how many ways do condoms fail, presumable the method that supposedly protects most, against STDs? They break, slip off, leak, or sometimes just don't even get used at all. Young people often use contraceptives incorrectly, and so-called "failure" rates are stated assuming "perfect" use, each and every time. And yet humans are so horny, that we insist upon having sex so frequently, as to provide numerous opportunites for "failure." That's a practical reason why I advocate relaxing more, and welcoming our babies to push out naturally. They say you can't stop people from having sex. Well sex=babies. So why don't they complete that idea? You can't stop people from having babies then. So why not explore how to adapt the planet to better accomodate and hold, lots more people?
Yes, they may feel crappier than without, but they're a necessary evil. pronatalist, I'm sick of your uber-religious bullshit. Plus, your signature is the most ridiculous thing ever (plus you support it in your posts). That's the African model (and other places around the world). Have multiple children in the hopes that at least one will survive and have a good life. What a load of shit. I come from a family of 5 (two parents with three kids) and that's hard enough. Almost all of my clothes came from Goodwill etc., I definitely couldn't get all of the toys I wanted (and I didn't exactly ask for the moon), plus my parents had to attempt to raise three kids at once (which is a tough job) while still affording food and a house. I didn't have the worst life ever, not even close. But some families with 6 or more children -- holy crap. I don't think I could remember all of my kids' names if that were the case.
Having possibly many children, isn't just merely "religious," it's also in keeping with nature. Having many children isn't just "macho," but allows so many more fellow human beings to live. Why don't people consider the philosophy as well? I don't expect people to just copy my reasons, but to open their minds, and find their own reasons, to possibly relax and welcome their families to grow more naturally. Maybe some people just get fed up with the shoddy "birth control" "options" and decide to let their family size get a bit "out of hand" naturally? Look at all the pathetic excuses, and often rather good reasons. Some lady I once worked with, told me her boyfriend was "too big" to use a condom? Hmmm. Okay. Do we really think that's the reason? Maybe he doesn't know very well how they are sized, or they interfere with spontanity, or they dull sensation. Or maybe he just is too big? Hey, I don't know.
Maybe your family didn't do so well, but some do better with many children. Clothes from Goodwill? Some of my clothes growing up, were used. I would buy used clothes now, if they were simply easier to buy. Properly grouped by patterns or size, but I spend almost nothing on clothes, as I no longer outgrow them, and I tend to wear and wear them, until worn out, like my Dad tended to have a closet full of clothes, somewhat out-of-date perhaps. I had some nice toys, grew up and got a job, and bought myself even better "toys." There's that old saying that "The difference between men and boys, is the price of their toys." Now I buy "toys" like a Sony Playstation 2, a fancy graphing calculator, computers, but no stupid "toy" computer iPods as I don't need my music so portable.
I am quite sure that parents of more than 6 children, can remember all their children's names. That scene in Home Alone, where some neighbor kid is counted in the children's headcount, and so one of their children is left at home? That's movie nonsense, surely such rarely happens. Children "grow" on the parents, and they get used to having so many. Somehow in spite of our society no longer supporting or teaching people how to raise large families very well anymore.
I believe families should relax and possibly grow naturally large, as even in nature, life tends to spread to fill most available niche.
Your attitudes come from the 19th century, clearly.
Did you ever think, that some of us, don't particularly like the declining social mores of the supposedly "modern" 20th century? I think quite a lot of the technology, isn't moving yet towards people soon colonizing more worlds, but at least for now, towards encouraging people to populate this one more densely and efficiently, and then maybe move on, later.
Having responsible sex, whether married or not, is a good choice. And you telling people that they should just not use a condom is what's wrong with the world today -- that's why AIDS is such a problem (among other STIs) and why there are so many unwanted pregnancies, married or not. Get a life and learn something about the world around you. I can either use a condom and get a nice house with a high standard of living and then have kids when I'm ready or I can live in a box with my 18 kids. Which one am I going to choose?
Is our views of not using unnatural condoms, really so strange? Condoms aren't "sexy," even in porn. Sex is generally considered more natural and better, bareback, especially when children are desired rather than irrationally feared. I would rather "live in a box" with 18 children, than have a big empty, lonely house. But I was thinking more like 15 children, but then, I don't really think God would give me quite 15 children. I'm probably getting a bit old, to be capable even of siring so many children, well unless I marry a woman who already has 10 children?
I am not at all impressed with the pathetic history of the development of contraceptives. It reeks of immorality, Nazi-like eugenics, the globalist anti-family population "control" educated moron theories, etc. It's like we are laboratory rats and they come up with all these nasty shoddy contraceptives to experiment on us. What's wrong with the beauty and elegance and naturalistic "no method" method of "family planning?" Whatever happened to babies happening when they happen?
onder:
