Monday, October 6, 2014

Agamy and the absence of marriage

A perfect economic-legal-media storm, isn't ?

Rates are down in people marrying.

Laws are now obsolete in promoting a child being raised by both parents with marriage or anything

Internet and headlines.... Don't help.

IUDs (foreign objects inserted into young women) are being recommended at a national level by government agencies. Because the stability and function of the family is no longer present.


This being a Catholic blog, I prayed the rosary for the synod.

This being a public policy blog, there is still a lot work that can be done ensuring that children will be cared and loved by their own families, and that children will not be objectified or denied their rights to maternal and paternal relationships.

This being a local blog, I have immediate concern for the wellbeing of families in my neighborhood.

11 comments:

  1. "IUDs (foreign objects inserted into young women) are being recommended at a national level by government agencies. Because the stability and function of the family is no longer present."

    I'm unsure what this means. Rewording I get this: "Because the stability and function of the family is no longer present, IUDs are being recommended at a national level by government agencies." How is that exactly? Is the state of the stability and function of the family a finding of fact that makes government agencies conclude they should recommend IUDs? That doesn't sound like what you're probably trying to say here. Genuinely confused.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, that's what I'm saying.

      We have this backwards.

      The reason why young women postpone children and use birth control more realiably... is that there is already a good chance of finishing highschool an getting working skills and choosing sexual partners with the same attributes.

      Birth control (IUD) do not promote any habit/skill/value to education, other then not having a baby.

      What about young women who do have children, but are accomplished education/work....


      What factors worked in their favor?

      Individuals who are motivated with good work/study habits with a good social base (family) can handle the a surprise of a baby and not end up in poverty.

      Delete
  2. As a side issue, give me props for posting a Daily Kos link on Facebook about a gay adoptive parent understanding a child's needs.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/05/1334454/-Cheerios-What-is-Wrong-With-the-Gay-Adoption-Commercial

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Birth control (IUD) do not promote any habit/skill/value to education, other then not having a baby. "

    There are lots of things in life that don't promote having a baby. Why single this one out? Moreover, if you *don't* want a baby, then things that don't promote having a baby aren't a problem. So what's the problem?

    Also the causal reasoning that you're asserting is behind government agency recommendations ("the government things X therefore recommends y") should probably have a cite. Seems like a stretch to me.

    Also, the I don't see what birth control actually has to do with Agamy. Is there some kind of correlation that could be cited?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But for those eho want babies, and it is an unnatural force making it impossible to have a stable family.

      We make babies become a problem. Babies are a natural outcome outcome. Fertility is a sign if health not disease.

      But we live in a culture, that rather seeks knowledge, understanding, respect, and love for our bodies wants management and maintaince with cold data results.

      Sure I can go on and on about data that married biological parents have good outcomes for kids.


      But I'm not imposing a law to make that happen, just laws that recognize it.

      You realize we can have a strong marriage culture without any government recognition.

      But the government has decided to stay in the marriage business.

      Why ?

      For what purpose ?

      Now that marriage rates haven't been the lowest since the flu pandemic in 1918.

      FYI the Catholics Church recognizes a multiple forms of relationships and believes in civil unions for beyond same sex couples.

      Delete
  4. "the government things X therefore recommends y"

    should be ""the government thinks X therefore recommends y"

    ReplyDelete
  5. "But for those eho want babies, and it is an unnatural force making it impossible to have a stable family. "

    Surely you aren't saying people who use IUDs don't have babies when they want to.

    "We make babies become a problem. Babies are a natural outcome outcome. Fertility is a sign if health not disease."

    We don't make babies a problem. We recognized unplanned pregnancy *can be* a problem. Even your use of NFP is a recognition of this. Nobody thinks pregnancy is a disease - that's pretty large straw man.

    "Sure I can go on..."

    Sure, but those things are straying from my question - they don't have anything to do with IUDs.

    You are, of course, perfectly free to disapprove of IUDs, but the use of non-NFP, non-permanent contraceptive methods are pretty much the same thing functionally as NFP when it comes to deciding when to get pregnant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But not how it treats female sexuality. NFP treats it like a normal functioning part of her body, contraception treats female sexuality like a disease that needs to be managed and controlled. It doesn't function in the same way, because contraception makes female sexual dysfunctional. We're suppose to ovulate and menstruate.

      There really isnt such a thing as an unplanned pregnancy. Sure one may desire not to get pregnant, ones lack of want doesn't make it unplanned.

      Delete
    2. If you want to make a point about the distinction between the chemical nature of most contraceptive methods vs. NFP, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that the very purpose of NFP and other contraceptive methods is to control when you get pregnant.

      "There really isnt such a thing as an unplanned pregnancy."

      This is false on it's face. To the extent that one can have sex without the intent of getting pregnant and get pregnant anyway, that is, by definition an unplanned pregnancy. You don't do your case any service by denying this reality. (BTW you're literally talking to the result of an unplanned pregnancy.)

      Delete
  6. I am not so sure an accidental pregnancy is "unplanned".  The couple planned on doing something and one of the outcomes was for the woman to be Preggers. It isn't like the crime of PWOP—Pregnant With Out Permission, as it was in the UK during WWII for Service Women.

    It seems to me the stats suggest that our culture is shifting as we change our understanding of pregnancy and marriage.  I think Chief Justice Margaret Marshall was off course when, in writing the decision on Goodridge v DPH, she said that there is no evidence that shifts in our understanding of marriage have been detrimental.

    Frankly, I regret the fact that Common Law Marriage has disappeared here in our Commonwealth.

    Regards  —  Cliff

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think most people do not see the evidence, because it is slow. Lots of individual decisions that collectively force us to adjust, but each one is within its own choosing.

    Ground work in our policy, not simplified court decisions.

    Which was the Synod, the pastoral concerns.... which was hijacked by the media.

    ReplyDelete