Blame it on the children. They steal ur youth & leave u looking like a haggard bum. The couples who hastily hv kids are the ones who b*itch abt their golden days turning in2 gloomy days of boredom. & couples who plan 2 hv kids a lil later in life ENJOY the blessings & joys of marriage. Ur expenses shoot up sky high when u hv children. When I get married Ill make sure that I wont hv any children till my 5th anniversary. I wanna enjoy life with my cinorita thowt hving any lil bastards running around the house like a bunch of wild dogs.
I kind of agree with you. Married couples should take their time in enjoying life together, without children and/or worries for a while before deciding to have kids. Kids are a huge responsibility and they take up a lot of time, so obviously everything changes after you have kids.

I think people should wait a couple of years before having kids.

I don't. Would they wait for years before winning the lottery? True, it's a responsibility, but children are not a burden, they are the greatest blessing G-d can give! G-d has His time when He wants to bless the family with children, and if they use birth control, who says He'll want to bless them later? Who says she'll still be fertile, and he'll still be potent?

And if one raises his children wisely, they won't "run around the house like a bunch of wild dogs." Sheep, maybe. :)

Only in extreme circumstances should having children be delayed

Well, I will definately have a break and enjoy my husband before having kids. But I wouldn't blame my kids for anything, as you said, they are the best God's creations.

Children. Why do people have them ? I think i have the answer to that. I think the main reason people have children is because its good for there egos. It justifies their existence. They need someone to rely on them, they need to feel that they have a larger pupose in life that watching television in a thong on saturday mornings. Personally, I could never have a child. I know I'm gay and so its physically impossible to have one with a man but I still don't think I would want one if I was straight. They'd get in the way of my fabulousness. Sure, they're cute and novel.....for two weeks and then I'd probably lose interest. I can't take care of plants let alone children. People think that my self obsession is just an act. Well sweety, I'm here to tell you that it ain't. I mean its only natural to be.......preoccupied with yourself. Its just that I am......to more of an extreme. So children.............no way, ew.

I would wait at least a number of years before trying for kids.

Two years maximum, one year minimum. I don't wanna be an old grandma when my kids are in their teens but I wana enjoy my husband for a bit before we jump into having a family!

Let's say you get married at 24. You've lived 24 years without having kids, what difference does waiting another 3-4 years make? Hardly anything.

A married couple should get used to each other. Even if they knew each other for years prior to getting married, it is different when you are living together, and I'm sure it takes time to get used to.

People say that the first few years of marriage are the most difficult. Wouldn't it be wiser to wait, rather than rush into having children? If you end up getting divorced, at least your children wouldn't have to suffer. I'd say that it is reasonable not to have children for the first few years, and once you get past that 'rocky road', you can start considering having kids of your own.

A couple should also be financially stable. You spend money on children. Most couples who get married young, or right after they start working, do not have the ability to support their children financially.

I just think that there are a lot of things you need to consider before having children. Children are a huge responsibility. Don't just jump into having kids. Think it over, and make sure you're ready first.

Personally, I wouldn't mind waiting up to 5 years after I get married until I have kids. Waiting around 3-5 years sounds ideal to me.

the problem is your parents keep bugging you...'when am i gonna have grandkids??' :s

Personally, I wouldn't mind waiting up to 5 years after I get married until I have kids. Waiting around 3-5 years sounds ideal to me.

:yes: , I want to enjoy as much time as possible alone with my husband, make sure he is the guy that I'd want to actually have kids with, get past through the "shocking" stage, make sure that my career life is stable before jumping into the next stage of life: having children and all of the responsibilities and sacrifices that tag along with it. There's no going back to the selfish and reckless life. :scary:

Glad you agree, Sophis ;)

MaterialBoy: though some people have children for the wrong reasons, the main thing is that children are born! Do you think the child would prefer to live for the less-than-ideal reasons, or not to be born in the first place?

Phoenix:
Let's say you get married at 24. You've lived 24 years without having kids, what difference does waiting another 3-4 years make? Hardly anything.

it makes a big difference, I feel
as I said, you never know what will be

we have no control over whether a woman becomes pregnant; at the end of the day we can only make the vessel--conception is in G-d hands

so since G-d has His time when He wants to bless the family with children, and if they use birth control, who says He'll want to bless them later? Who says she'll still be fertile, and he'll still be potent?

A married couple should get used to each other. Even if they knew each other for years prior to getting married, it is different when you are living together, and I'm sure it takes time to get used to.

There's time to "get to know each other" until they have their first child! If they work hard at it, they can get to know each other very, very well.

I felt very "used" to my wife after a year of marriage, thank G-d

what people really need is guidance from older, wiser, and experienced people

Let's say you get married at 24. You've lived 24 years without having kids, what difference does waiting another 3-4 years make? Hardly anything.

A married couple should get used to each other. Even if they knew each other for years prior to getting married, it is different when you are living together, and I'm sure it takes time to get used to.

People say that the first few years of marriage are the most difficult. Wouldn't it be wiser to wait, rather than rush into having children? If you end up getting divorced, at least your children wouldn't have to suffer. I'd say that it is reasonable not to have children for the first few years, and once you get past that 'rocky road', you can start considering having kids of your own.

A couple should also be financially stable. You spend money on children. Most couples who get married young, or right after they start working, do not have the ability to support their children financially.

Indeed, one of the strongest objections is fear of financial inability to support children. Naturally, parents want the best for their children, and fear of being unable to provide adequately is a powerful deterrent to having them. This is a genuine concern--but based on an assumption which springs from a weakness of faith and presumptuousness. One who fears that he will not be able to provide is assuming that it is completely through his efforts that he does succeed. True, Torah requires that man work to provide for his family. But it is a primary tenet of Torah that all success comes from G-d, that it is His blessings that give sustenance, not one's own efforts alone. It is G-d Who provides for all of His creatures; another mouth will not overburden Him.

An appraisal of motives might be in order. Is it possible that the concern of financial limitations may be a rationalization for living in a particular lifestyle? Contemporary society demands a standard that is, to say the least, profligate. Is it possible that we have adopted indulgences as necessities and this causes the worry about financial means? It is time to assess priorities to avoid regarding indulgence of trivial desires as necessity and a reason for not having children.

Besides financial worries, a serious concern is the personal toll that raising children exacts from parents. It has become almost axiomatic in today's society that a goal in life is personal pleasure and enjoyment, and the pursuit thereof. If children prove an obstacle to a carefree existence, then children will have to go. And who can deny that they constitute an immense personal burden in terms of energy, freedom of movement and time, not to mention the emotional toll they exact.

But the real problem is not one of sufficient personal resources, but rather one of priorities. In many other areas -- careers, personal goals etc.--people do manage to put up with great inconvenience and sacrifice to attain their object--if it is considered important enough. The real problem is that children are regarded not as sources of joy and happiness, but as burdens and impediments to pleasure and "fulfillment."

Being childless, no matter how much freedom it allows, cannot compare in rewards.

Let us be fair in our evaluation, applying the same foresight and long range planning that dictates not having children, to the problems it generates; look at the other side of the coin. The pleasure of freedom from the encumbrance of children for a few years dissolves into--what? The growing emptiness of middle age? The loneliness of old age? All too swiftly carefree youth crumbles into the bleakness of the later childless years. The immense satisfaction and comfort of children and grandchildren are denied by a few years of fleeting freedom. That is shortsightedness; that is lack of planning! Looking too far ahead? No more than those who look twenty years or more into the future when worrying about their financial ability to rear and educate children.

But, the argument continues. Granted that having children is a fine, even beautiful thing; but at least give people the choice as to when to have children. Can people be faulted for wishing to space their children, to have a break between one child and the next? Or for delaying their first child until they feel emotionally and financially able? Seemingly logical, certainly appealing. But while it is an axiom of Torah that man has free choice, do not confuse this with unlimited opportunity to choose. A child is not a faucet, to be turned on at will. No power on earth can guarantee the birth of a baby. That decision, that power, is G-d's, and G-d's alone, the third Partner in every child. The possible blessing so disdained earlier may not be available later. Take His blessings when He offers them, gratefully, and rest assured that this third Partner is benevolent, all-knowing, Who can be trusted to know the best time.

Bluntly: it is presumptuous for anyone to see herself as the final authority determining life. Attempts to regulate life based solely on man's limited understanding are foolhardy, and the stakes are too high to risk the unpredictable.

I think that whether a couple want to have children or not, how often they want to wait before having their first child, how big of a gap they leave between each child is a personal choice.

I know that I will definitely wait a couple of years.. I really think that it depends on the couple themselves and what sort of situation they're in. No two cases are the same.

Family planning is important on various levels ... for the children's development, for strength in marriage, and for the welfare of the greater civil society.

People who say "God bless us whenever" are like the same people who like to take a stroll through a highway ... and look the other way and think "well if God plans me to be I will survive"

God loves smart, educated, people who like to plan and are not ignorant - God hates ignorant people.

I think that whether a couple want to have children or not, how often they want to wait before having their first child, how big of a gap they leave between each child is a personal choice.

Phoenix: I understand that you think that it is a matter of personal choice, however, you have not directly addressed and responded to the issues I raised in my posts. You mentioned the issues of getting to know each other and financial stability. I responded to this at length, but I don't see that you've responded directly to my points in your response.

Family planning is important on various levels ... for the children's development, for strength in marriage, and for the welfare of the greater civil society.

Pretender: you do not bring any reasoning to prove your assertions, you merely state that they are true as if it were self-evident and axiomatic, and you say that those who think otherwise are ignorant. Perhaps you are right, but perhaps you could let us in on the reasons behind your sweeping statements? thanks

mono. are you suggesting that a couple should have a new baby evey year.

How about breast feeding is there anything mentioned in the Torah about the maximum duration the mother should keep on feeding her baby?

monowe have no control over whether a woman becomes pregnant; at the end of the day we can only make the vessel--conception is in G-d handsHere is your first wrong statement ... yes mankind does have the ability to control when a woman becomes pregnant.

Do you think the child would prefer to live for the less-than-ideal reasons, or not to be born in the first place?Then you stir in some (religious) guilt.

Bluntly: it is presumptuous for anyone to see herself as the final authority determining life. Attempts to regulate life based solely on man's limited understanding are foolhardy, and the stakes are too high to risk the unpredictable.Then you make the same false statement again ... stir in some apocalypse scenario. Again a religious fear tactic.

Sorry but I see family planning as prudent and responsible, not only for yourself, the children and society as a whole.

I see family planning as prudent and responsible, not only for yourself, the children and society as a whole.


Ditto... :)

This is a genuine concern--but based on an assumption which springs from a weakness of faith and presumptuousness. One who fears that he will not be able to provide is assuming that it is completely through his efforts that he does succeed. True, Torah requires that man work to provide for his family. But it is a primary tenet of Torah that all success comes from G-d, that it is His blessings that give sustenance, not one's own efforts alone. It is G-d Who provides for all of His creatures; another mouth will not overburden Him.


mmm.. So even if you knew that you didn't have the money to support any children, you should just go ahead and have kids, because really, God will provide you with all you need? Hmm. Doesn't sound right to me. Yes, i do believe that all blessings come from Him, but still, we have brains for a reason. You should keep in mind what situation you're in (financial). If you know that you are not financially equipped to have children, then why go and have them? You should be able to provide them with everything they need. If you were incapable of doing so, then I don't see why you should have kids. There are so many poverty-stricken kids in the world, or kids who are not getting what they need, why bring more into this less-than-perfect world when you know that you won't be able to give them what they need and make them happy?

The real problem is that children are regarded not as sources of joy and happiness, but as burdens and impediments to pleasure and "fulfillment."


Some people might regard them as so, others might not. Everyone thinks differently. Also, you mentioned something about priorities. I think that people do have the right to decide what is more important to them. Career? Children? It's all up to them. If children aren't a priority, then a couple should not have them, because they won't give them enough of their time, love and care. And there's nothing worse to a child than knowing that s/he isn't loved, or that s/he comes second to something else. Something like their parents' careers.

mono. are you suggesting that a couple should have a new baby every year

Well, it's not so likely that they will, but if they do, so much the better! What a great accomplishment! What a contribution to society!

Here is your first wrong statement ... yes mankind does have the ability to control when a woman becomes pregnant.

Please re-read my post.

My point was that, if the couple have marital relations, whether the woman conceives is in G-d's hands alone.

Then you stir in some (religious) guilt. ... stir in some apocalypse scenario. Again a religious fear tactic.

Call it what you like.

A married couple has the ability (with the Creator's blessing) to give life, and if they don't use it, they withhold life from the world, and that is wrong.

So even if you knew that you didn't have the money to support any children, you should just go ahead and have kids, because really, God will provide you with all you need?

What's the case here exactly? Is there a basic income, or are the parents themselves starving? In the western world, people don't starve: we have social security.

You should keep in mind what situation you're in (financial). If you know that you are not financially equipped to have children, then why go and have them?

Is value of life determined by wealth or the lack thereof? I vote no.

I think people need to be very honest with themselves about what things are necessities and what are luxuries. As long as there is an income, and one can feed the family on a basic level, why wait?


You should be able to provide them with everything they need. If you were incapable of doing so, then I don't see why you should have kids. There are so many poverty-stricken kids in the world, or kids who are not getting what they need, why bring more into this less-than-perfect world when you know that you won't be able to give them what they need and make them happy?

Yes, but what DO they need?

Children need love and guidance, not chocolate bars and toys.

So, perhaps they won't be living so comfortably. Perhaps they won't be able to go out to restaurants, buy tickets to go to the football every weekend, etc. People are very spoilt nowadays, and they think that such things are necessities.

The standard of living nowadays is so high, thank G-d. This didn't exist in past generations. They were all born without all these luxuries, and their lives were valuable IMHO. I don't think that a child without e.g., a Gameboy will wish he wasn't born. I don't think his parents will think that either. I sure hope not. Maybe he will even live his life in a more worthy way than others.

And maybe he won't go to college, because the parents can't afford it. If someone doesn't go to college, is his life not worth living? And even if the parents can afford to send him, he may not want to go. I should hope the parents don't then regret having him.

Some people might regard them as so [i.e., burdens], others might not. Everyone thinks differently.

Well, I'm saying that this is a misguided way to think. How would you feel if your mother told you they never really wanted to give birth to you, and they didn't feel it was worth sacrificing to do it, and you should respect that, because that's their feeling?

And (you don't have to answer this, it's rhetorical) what if you were told by your parents that they weren't planning to have you, but the contraception didn't work--how would you feel then?

I think that people do have the right to decide what is more important to them. Career? Children? It's all up to them.

true, it's their choice, but there's a right one and a wrong one. If a career is more important to them than bringing forth new life, it's very unfortunate. I'm sure they're glad that THEIR parents didn't have that attitude.

If children aren't a priority, then a couple should not have them

true
but my point is that the couple should CHANGE their sense of priorities

And there's nothing worse to a child than knowing that s/he isn't loved, or that s/he comes second to something else. Something like their parents' careers.

yup!

That's exactly my point.

And that's why I feel so sorry for all those children who know full well that their parents didn't have them until it was convenient for the parents career-wise, because the parents were oh so devoted to "family planning."

Call it what you like.

A married couple has the ability (with the Creator's blessing) to give life, and if they don't use it, they withhold life from the world, and that is wrong.


There is already so much life in the world, already thousands of children in the world who aren't being taken care of properly! These children should be 'dealt with' first.
I don't see why you should have children just because it's not fair to "withhold life from the world". You should have children because YOU WANT TO. Plain and simple.

The value of life is not determined by wealth, and yes, toys, chocolate, etc are a luxury, not a necessity. Love and tenderness, care is what every child needs, as well as the basic things, food, a home, etc. But all this alone does not make a child happy.

Yes, they could live comfortably, but not happily. And I do not want to have children if I know that I can't give them everything I myself had as a child, in order to make them happy. I had my parents' love, and they gave me some of their time, but you know what really made me happy/excited? When they would take me to eat out, or when we'd go to a play area and play on the rides. When I think of my childhood, those are the things I remember. Going to the park, playing at the play area in Burger King.

I want my kids to get a decent education, and I know that I can only accomplish that by sending them to a private school, I want to take them on holidays in the summer, etc. You need money for all this.

People often say that money does not buy happiness, but to be frank, I think it does bring you some degree of happiness.

Well, I'm saying that this is a misguided way to think. How would you feel if your mother told you they never really wanted to give birth to you, and they didn't feel it was worth sacrificing to do it, and you should respect that, because that's their feeling?

And (you don't have to answer this, it's rhetorical) what if you were told by your parents that they weren't planning to have you, but the contraception didn't work--how would you feel then?


LOL. They would never actually tell me that. I know so many people who have kids 'by accident', but they're not really unhappy about it. If you get pregnant, then you just have to deal with it and make the best out of the situation.

Honestly, if I knew, I wouldn't really feel upset. Because despite being 'a mistake', I still got everything I wanted as a child and I had a happy childhood.

There is already so much life in the world, already thousands of children in the world who aren't being taken care of properly! These children should be 'dealt with' first.

The Creator has certainly blessed us with enough resources to "deal with" both. And again, material blessings come from the Creator, not human efforts. Thus, someone could exert effort for many years to earn money and earn nothing, or make millions in minutes.

Since the Creator wants us to procreate, as the Creator tells Adam and Noah in the Bible in Genesis: "Be fruitful and multiply," He will surely help us succeed at this goal. And by ignoring His wishes, we surely cannot gain; we surely only do ourselves a disservice.

I don't see why you should have children just because it's not fair to "withhold life from the world". You should have children because YOU WANT TO. Plain and simple

I disagree with this philosophy. I believe that one's choices ought to be motivated not be "what one wants"--which could be a formula for very immoral behaviour--but by what is right and wrong. Since it is right to increase life in the world, and wrong to withhold it, that knowledge should motivate one's choices and channel one's desires.

Yes, they could live comfortably, but not happily. And I do not want to have children if I know that I can't give them everything I myself had as a child, in order to make them happy. I had my parents' love, and they gave me some of their time, but you know what really made me happy/excited? When they would take me to eat out, or when we'd go to a play area and play on the rides. When I think of my childhood, those are the things I remember. Going to the park, playing at the play area in Burger King.

If anything, I think you prove my point. Did it cost enormous amounts of money for your parents to take you to the park, or to the play area, or take you out for a snack? I think not. And the parents' love, time, and attention is surely independent of wealth. If anything, wealthy parents can often be more selfish. If the parents so desire, without overly exerting themselves, I believe they can find creative, inexpensive ways to spend fun and quality time with their children.

In summary, although poverty presents challenges, it does not necessarily translate to misery, nor does wealth necessarily translate to happiness. What matters is the parents attitude to their children: do they consider them the greatest blessing they could ever receive? Then the children will feel loved. If they consider that their own convenience takes precedence, that will surely significantly detract from the children's sense of feeling loved.

I want my kids to get a decent education, and I know that I can only accomplish that by sending them to a private school

I fully agree--especially nowadays, when the public schools promote such immorality. But if something is important, even people who are struggling for money finid the money for it. So there are difficulties--but the sacrifice is worthwhile. The Creator will surely help, and at the end of the day, the child will be grateful for it, and the parent will feel a sense of fulfillment at giving, and at doing the right thing.

LOL. They would never actually tell me that. I know so many people who have kids 'by accident'

Why wouldn't they tell you, if there's nothing wrong with it? See, they sense there's something not right about it.

but they're not really unhappy about it. If you get pregnant, then you just have to deal with it and make the best out of the situation.

Really? It doesn't bother them at all? The fact that you say that they need to "deal with it," and "make the best out of the situation," implies that it does bother them.

Honestly, if I knew, I wouldn't really feel upset. Because despite being 'a mistake', I still got everything I wanted as a child and I had a happy childhood.

Perhaps you wouldn't, but don't you think that many others would? And how can you really know, if you have not been in that situation yourself? Have you done a survey of those who are in that situation?

An altruistic objection is put forward by women who wish to have more time to devote to worthy causes and good works. This sentiment is predicated on a false assumption. A woman's worth is not to be measured in terms that society dictates. Charitable causes are undoubtedly worthy pursuits, but no less worthy is child-raising. Who has determined that charity is superior to rearing children? A child granted by G-d indicates what must take precedence. Furthermore, endeavors in such pursuits in the limited time she does have, will be blessed with more than enough success to compensate for time spent in raising a child. And who can know what great things that child, raised with the loving care of his parents, will ultimately achieve?

A final argument is that repeated child-bearing can have a detrimental effect on a woman's beauty. Our sages have stressed the importance of beauty in women, both spiritual and physical. Hence, runs the argument, and it is a legitimate one, it would be wise to refrain from too many children to ensure the continuing affection between husband and wife.

Torah values however are not identical with today's mores. A woman's beauty is a private matter, confined to herself and her husband. Modesty, a commodity so rare today, is the highest term of approbation that can be bestowed. When that modesty is kept, when that inner beauty is retained, no amount of child-bearing can damage the relationship between a man and wife. Indeed the reverse is true: the fulfillment of this greatest of good deeds--to be fruitful--ultimately leads to a more enduring relationship between the couple. Her beauty becomes deeper, more enduring.

But all these are theoretical points, arguments and counter-arguments, objections, products of man's ingenious mind. But experience teaches too. Statistics reveal some sobering facts. Precisely in the past few generations, when the concept of family planning has become so wide-spread, we see the highest rates of marital discord. Disharmony in the home, separations, divorces, ugly quarrels, tension, nervous frustrations, psychiatric disorders--the problems are legion, matched only by their severity.[Parenthetically, there is the not unrelated point of financial problems. The substantial amounts of money spent in such cases seeking relief, paid to psychiatrists etc., could well have been put to more healthy uses.] Compare now with past generations, when family planning was far less common. The divorce rate was infinitesimal, respect and harmony between spouses legendary in the eyes of the world. And let us not forget the effect on the children, growing up in a household of peace and harmony and shared ideals and values.

The reason for the gulf between generations is simple. Man was created in a certain way, and attempts to interfere must lead to disruptions. The human body is infinitely intricate. Disrupting its natural functions inevitably causes problems. Family planning, presented as helpful and logical, causes many of the marital problems so prevalent today.

Birth control, family planning -- call it what you will -- is a fad that has crippled women for too long. True self-worth, true identity, does not belong to those who blindly follow the dictates of contemporary society. Children, many children, are the greatest gift and blessing G-d can bestow upon us; do not let imagined obstacles stand in the way of enjoying these blessings.

When told that he shouldn't have had so many children, my father says, "so which one exactly should I not have had?" :rolleyes:

Also, when they get older and their children move away, the parents often feel lonely. The fewer children they had, the fewer grandchildren they will have, and the less likely is it that their offspring will 1) live near them and 2) support them in their old age by visiting often. Many people realise this eventually, but sadly, by then it is too late.

from http://www.pop.org/main.cfm?id=147&r1=2.00&r2=6.00&r3=.00&r4=1.00&level=2&eid=264

Family planning: population control in drag

by David Morrison

Contrary to the claims of the Clinton Administration and population control advocates, men and women in the developing world do not lie awake at night worrying about when their next shipment of contraceptives will arrive from America. Nor do they demonstrate outside US embassies when the shipment is late. Why would they, given the unsavory history of "family planning" programs in the developing world? Every decade has seen major abuses.

In the early seventies officials of the United States government joined executives from the now defunct A. H. Robbin's corporation and administrators from many key so-called "family planning" organizations - almost all of whom US taxes still support - in distributing over 700,000 unsterilized and potentially lethal Dalkon shields for insertion into women in the developing world. Arthur Mintz, author of At any cost: Corporate Greed, women and the Dalkon Shield, estimates that thousands of women across the developing world may have died as a result of this American effort to promote "family planning."

Later that decade, according to the US Agency for International Development, the military government of Bangladesh employed soldiers to round up women for IUD insertions, besides threatening to withhold schoolteachers' wages unless they began using contraception.
In the eighties, according to a British Broadcasting Corporation documentary, another US-funded "family planning" organization used US tax dollars to mislead Bangladeshi and Haitian women about Norplant's side-effects prior to insertion. Then, when the women became seriously ill, removal was refused. Farida Akhter, a Bangladeshi women's health advocate, has documented cases of blindness and crippling infirmity among the women inserted.

During the same decade targets became common. Twenty-five countries, ranging from the Philippines to El Salvador, set monthly quotas for numbers of sterilizations. As they invariably do, these quotas led to US women being sterilized without their consent or under false pretenses as workers scrambled to meet them. In Bangladesh, women whose families were driven from their homes by flooding were told they would not receive international humanitarian assistance until they submitted to sterilization.

During the nineties, right to the present day, some Mexican government hospitals, according to sworn depositions collected by human rights activist Jorge Serrano, routinely sterilize or insert IUD's into women delivering their second or third child without their foreknowledge or consent, and (sometimes) even over their objections, immediately after giving birth. With the uterus expanded from childbirth, it is impossible to correctly size an IUD, which can embed in the uterine walls as the womb contracts. Then there is the well documented horror of forced abortion and sterilization promoted by the Chinese "one-child" policy, and supported by "family planners" like the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

These are not isolated examples. There are documented cases of coercion from more than 40 countries worldwide. The history of "family planners" is less one of beneficence than brutality. The primary reason for this is that such programs find their roots not in American compassion but fear; fear of the developing world's growing population, fear of economic competition for scarce resources, fear of social unrest spilling over our borders. The US National Security Council's National Security Study Memorandum 200 pointed out, in 1972, that many of the natural resources which the United States needs to maintain its technological and consumer base are located in developing countries. Where would we be, the NSC asked, if the populations of those countries grew numerous enough to want those resources for themselves? Better that we eliminate this future threat by beginning to reduce the population of those countries now. This has been our policy ever since.

"Family planning" advocates try to obscure this distasteful reality behind slick annual reports and surveys purporting to document "unmet need" for contraception in the developing world. Their real agenda cannot be hidden forever. After all, people who genuinely need products and services usually do not have to be tricked, threatened, badgered or otherwise coerced into accepting them. Men and women across the developing world deserve to be treated better than innocents on a used car lot.

Families in the developing world crave a different kind of planning, one that seeks to provide clean water instead of condoms and basic medical procedures instead of sterilizations. It was this kind of assistance Americans used to provide before the craze for "family planning" came to dominate foreign aid. Maybe, once Congress turns away from funding such egregious population control measures, Americans might once again be proud of our government's aid programs overseas.

i think i would probably wait a while if i married young, because the idea of being a mother at the age 23 is kind of weird, and also because im not planning on having a dozen monkeys jumping around so i can afford to wait :p - and btw material boy, i dont agree that people get kids for their own egos, because not all parents have exactly high self-esteem ... i think they do it moslty cos they like kids, and second to keep the family name bla bla bla :D

Really? 23 is young? Just a few generations ago, it was considered an old age to marry!

Why do you call children "monkeys"? Children are the most precious gift the Creator can give us, more valuable than all the wealth in the world!

Wouldn't you want to win the lottery not once, not twice, but ... as many times as the Creator blesses you? How much more so with children.

well now that life expectancy has gone up since the old days, 23 is a young age and IF i get a child i plan on devoting all my efforts in a proper way to raise him/her, so i dont want to be distracted by anything and plus i want to wait till i know that i am responsible enough to handle such a thing...
come on monotheism - im just making light of a serious subject!! i know kids are precious and i adore little babies, but since im just a kid myself i consider it allowed for me to call myself a monkey!! well i wish you would tell my mom what you just told me - maybe she'd stop callin me and my siblings wild monkeys when she gets mad!!!! lool

sorry, it's hard to tell online whether people are serious or kidding--some people have made similar comments seriously on this forum, sadly

i want to wait till i know that i am responsible enough to handle such a thing...

Do you mean that you'd get married, but delay having babies? Or do you mean that you'd delay marriage? And whichever you mean, can you please explain further why you think such a delay is necessary?

sorry i didnt think it would need such elaboration - ok i guess i would delay getting married cos that in itself is already a huge commitment, so i dont wanna screw that up either, and then when i am married wait at least a year to have kids to establish the relationship even further, because if i am not entirely compatible with the man i marry and something goes wrong (just thinking of the worst case scenario - not tryin to be a party pooper and say that i plan on divorcing a year into a marriage) i would be relieved that i didnt bring children into the world born into a broken family.
children should be born to loving parents who are able to give them all that they need in life without thinking that maybe he/she being born was the reason his/her parents split up. also to have parents who will be able to provide financially as well as emotionally. all these things are important and i do believe that if something is so important in life its worth taking it slow and steady to make sure you get the best possible outcome - after all, we have our whole lives to get what we want so why rush right?

(did you manage to read through the posts above?)
i would delay getting married cos that in itself is already a huge commitment, so i dont wanna screw that up either

so why will delaying help? And with proper guidance from older people, the immaturity factor can be overcome. And if someone has some severe psychological problem, delaying will not help.

and then when i am married wait at least a year to have kids to establish the relationship even further

Well, how about 9 months? Sounds like a lot of time to me!

And this presupposes that children are sure to detract from the parents' relationship. I think the opposite is true: having a child bring the parents closer together, and fixes marital problems!

if i am not entirely compatible with the man i marry and something goes wrong (just thinking of the worst case scenario

Things can "go wrong" at any stage.

The best guarantee that things will go well is having a positive attitude and a willingness to work things through even if the couple do not seem "entirely compatible."

children should be born to loving parents who are able to give them all that they need in life without thinking that maybe he/she being born was the reason his/her parents split up.

Of course, but is delaying having children the solution? Perhaps the solution is: More premarital counselling from older people, and support networks for marriage.

On the contrary, I believe that (barring extreme exceptions) delaying having children CREATES marital disharmony. A married couple are supposed to become parents, and contraception creates an unnatural tension.

Furthermore, this is their holy task, their privilege and responsibility, so delaying is shirking that responsibility. It's like taking a job, and then telling the boss that you want to take a year off from work!

The source of this attitude is from modern western culture, which idolises convenience and self-indulgence. Sadly, it has crept even into religious circles.

also to have parents who will be able to provide financially as well as emotionally

1) blessings come from G-d, not from man's efforts, and

2) the reality is that many poor people have fulfilled, well-adjusted, loved kids (see my discussion with Phoenix above).

if something is so important in life its worth taking it slow and steady to make sure you get the best possible outcome

1) if something is really important, one doesn't delay it!

2) One has nine whole months during pregnancy to receive guidance from doctors, parents, and older, experienced people, so I see no need to delay.

after all, we have our whole lives to get what we want so why rush right?

no
G-d might decide today that one is worthy of a blessing, but not tomorrow, you never know

It's like a lottery. If you are in a lottery, you can win, whenever G-d decides. But if you don't do your part, then who's to say that when you do decide, G-d will want to bless you?

Especially since G-d tells us clearly in the Torah that man should be fruitful and multiply!

Children. Why do people have them ? I think i have the answer to that. I think the main reason people have children is because its good for there egos. It justifies their existence. They need someone to rely on them, they need to feel that they have a larger pupose in life that watching television in a thong on saturday mornings. Personally, I could never have a child. I know I'm gay and so its physically impossible to have one with a man but I still don't think I would want one if I was straight. They'd get in the way of my fabulousness. Sure, they're cute and novel.....for two weeks and then I'd probably lose interest. I can't take care of plants let alone children. People think that my self obsession is just an act. Well sweety, I'm here to tell you that it ain't. I mean its only natural to be.......preoccupied with yourself. Its just that I am......to more of an extreme. So children.............no way, ew.


you are a perfect model for those who DON'T want children, ew ! and may be they had 4goten of the likes of you when they took that decision, ew !




.

monotheism ... coming from a broken family i understand what it means to take things slowly and that maybe if my parents had gotten to know each other more, things would have turned out differently, since my mom had five kids and my dad was always working so things went wrong eventually - all im saying is that i know what its like and i always hear people say that kids who have divorced parents are more likely to get divorced so i want to make sure i do things right!!! i dont know what other peoples reasons are, but i dont want to get married for the sole reason of breeding!!
so i wont be 'shirking' my responsibilities. i will probably still want to have kids but not right then... i dont think that counts as shirking. besides, everybody has their own ways of going about things.
obviously you believe in diving head on into everything you do and believing that your faith in God will allow everything to work out the way its supposed to. thats fine for you, because you've handled things like that and it suits you best.
but i believe in the whole 'an ounce of prevention' thing, and that if i sacrifice some time to make sure things will run smoothly, i may avoid major disasters in the future.
i fully understand that life may be taken away from us at any given moment... and its all in the hands of God, but i also know that God won't just judge us by the things we did and didn't do, but the intentions behind our actions. my intentions are not selfish in this case, so i feel no guilt whatsoever in waiting!

coming from a broken family i understand what it means to take things slowly all im saying is that i know what its like and i always hear people say that kids who have divorced parents are more likely to get divorced so i want to make sure i do things right!!!

indeed! That's EXACTLY why I advise you not to use contraception--as I explain above, family planning causes a strain in the marriage, and is thus one of the CAUSES of divorce

maybe if my parents had gotten to know each other more, things would have turned out differently

again, I don't see why the two are a contradiction; on the contrary, children bring the parents even closer together

If they both enter the marriage sincerely intending to work at building the relationship, then they will get to know each other plenty by the time the have their first child, even if he's born (congratulations!:)) after 9 months. And if they can't trust each other and G-d (Who wants people to be fruitful and multiply, and also brought these two people together) enough, then perhaps they shouldn't get married in the first place, or better yet--they should change their attitude.

i dont know what other peoples reasons are, but i dont want to get married for the sole reason of breeding!!


I didn't say that. I said something quite different--that one should marry, not simply because it's a nice thing to do, but because that's what the Creator wants. And the Creator wants us to have children!

besides, everybody has their own ways of going about things.

If it's a moral issue--which I believe this is in this case--it's the same for everyone, unless there is a specific reason for making an exception.

obviously you believe in diving head on into everything you do

No, don't rush. Consider carefully whom you marry; research his background thoroughly; make sure he's a nice guy. But once one commits to marry, that person ought to assume the roles that married people ought to assume. This will only improve, not detract from the relationship.

but i believe in the whole 'an ounce of prevention' thing, and that if i sacrifice some time to make sure things will run smoothly

If so, I suggest that, as preparation for marriage, you speak to as many respectable, older and wiser, people as possible about marriage before it, read a lot of books (by religious conservatives, not liberals) on the topic, and go to premarital classes. You'll do great!

i also know that God won't just judge us by the things we did and didn't do, but the intentions behind our actions

yes, but if G-d specifically said He wants one thing, even if one means well, which I don't doubt that you do, how can one act differently from G-d's Will?


Furthermore, a major element of this discussion is trust in the Creator. Since He has said that we ought to have children, a parent must have trust in the Creator that when He blesses a couple with a child (or another child), then He will also bless that family with ways and means to cope with whatever challenges that this blessing may or may not entail.

monotheism: why is the word God censored in your posts?? its written G-d...? whats that about???

He's Jewish, so I think that explains it. I've noticed they don't write 'God'.

i still dont understand... :s
well anyways back to the subject -
this is a good example of where family planning is needed the most.
there are some really poor families in oman that live in the sort of 'country side' and the interior regions and stuff; ok theres this family my mom knows, where this woman got married at a young age, her family is poor and so is her husband - she got i think around 10 children (not exagerating), and her husband unfortunately, died recently. so now this family has no income whatsoever, and lives entirely on charity, because her two children who finished school didnt get good enough grades to get into a college, one of them is a boy, so his destiny is basically low income as a fisher or farmer, which still wont be able to support a family of eleven. and the girls in this family might end up like their mother, married at a young age in order to be provided for, get lots of kids, and the cycle just keeps going in that way...
my mother said when she told me, and i totally agree with her, that it's unjust to do this, i mean getting so many children and just concentrating on how many children a person has, when it would be much wiser to just have fewer kids and ensure their lives, in case something happens to the parents... its only fair.

yeah i agree,, its better to have few kids with good lives, than a whole football team with no life.. which is why i think when i get married id need 1 yr MINIMUM just with my husband and i, just to enjoy the married life without kids, and have fun. and then maybe after 1 or 2 yrs, start a family.. maybe 2 or 3 kids.. no more.. if u dont think u can finance it then i think ur just making the situation worse. i mean u wouldnt want to change ur lifestyle by having more and more kids, cuz the more kids u have the more money u spend on them, and so ur lifestyle changes. no more going out, kids get less allowance each .. and so on.. so.. quality and not quantity!

He's Jewish, so I think that explains it. I've noticed they don't write 'God'.


yeh i've noticed in a few thread tht sum ppl write god as in g-d.. STILL DONT GET IT..

why is the word God censored in your posts?? its written G-d...?

The Jewish custom is to not to write His name in full, because G-d's written name is holy, and thus erasure of His Name, even when translated into a foreign language, is inappropriate, and if the piece of paper on which His name is written is discarded, that holy writing of his name will then have been desecrated. However this is not an obligation as such, just appropriate conduct.

The issue was raised here: Why G-D? (http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18916)

this is a good example of where family planning is needed the most.
there are some really poor families in oman that live in the sort of 'country side' and the interior regions and stuff; ok there's this family my mom knows, where this woman got married at a young age, her family is poor and so is her husband - she got i think around 10 children (not exaggerating), and her husband unfortunately, died recently. so now this family has no income whatsoever, and lives entirely on charity, because her two children who finished school didnt get good enough grades to get into a college, one of them is a boy, so his destiny is basically low income as a fisher or farmer, which still wont be able to support a family of eleven. and the girls in this family might end up like their mother, married at a young age in order to be provided for, get lots of kids, and the cycle just keeps going in that way...
my mother said when she told me, and i totally agree with her, that it's unjust to do this, i mean getting so many children and just concentrating on how many children a person has, when it would be much wiser to just have fewer kids and ensure their lives, in case something happens to the parents... its only fair


Every child is a gift. Many people try all their lives to have children and cannot.

To 'blame' their situation on the number of children is simplistic.

Childless people fall on hard times too. On the contrary: a larger family HELPS people through tough times--having a strong family support team helps them get through what might otherwise be unbearable (e.g., the loss of a father...).

Would the boys have gotten better grades had they been only children?!

And to make predictions for the future of the daughters?! How can one know what their lives will be like? They may well go on to accomplish great things!

I come from a large family. When we went through difficulties, I realized how lucky I was to have them. We were able to support and lean on each other. It really helped us get through it.

Sure, growing up, I wasn't always able to have new things and often had to wear hand-me-downs (gasp!), but I don't think I ever felt like I was missing out on anything. I find that many times, an outsider's view of things is very different than what is actually happening. People have pre-assumptions and that coupled with what they see gives them a false impression of the situation.

Someone told me of a talk-radio show and the host was talking about family planning for Mexicans (I guess they have "many" children.) The host was saying that these people should make sure they have the funds available before having children. He remembers thinking how ridiculous this sounded. Does a person really have control over things like this? Does a person really know what the next day will bring?

Take the people who worked for Enron, for example. One day they thought they were well off. They were making good salaries, had good pension plans. Then they found out there was a scandal. All these "well-off" people weren't so well-off.

We have to trust in the Creator. We have to realize that children are a blessing from Him. As said before, there are some couples who pray for years to have a child. Others unfortunately take it for granted. When we trust the Creator we realize that He gives each of us exactly what we need.


NK: Have you managed to read through the discussion earlier on this thread?

When we trust the Creator we realize that He gives each of us exactly what we need. (http://allafrica.com/stories/200409200589.html)

The creator needs to check on these children and millions more just like them. He must have not seen what they need yet.

mono ... please pray to the creator to help them.

I will also ... in my own way.

But until the creator does ... mortal humans may have to do the job ;)

I will pray for them, jack. I did not mean to suggest that action need not be taken to assist these societies, but only that "family planning" is not the solution. Furthermore, this article does not disprove the assertion above that "When we trust the Creator we realize that He gives each of us exactly what we need":

Consider that hundreds of years ago when the population was much smaller, the Africans were just as unethical in their behavior and were constantly suffering from inter-tribal wars. The problem is the behavior, not the population. And as we see around the word, it is no problem to raise enough food to support large populations (especially in a fertile land like Africa). The problem is the corruption, theft, cheating, etc. that prevents a "green revolution" such as has occurred in the West.

Reducing population would not help.

Several million impoverished Jews came to the US last century...how many became involved in crime or wound up on welfare? Next to none. Ten to a room, cold water, shared bathroom in the hall, etc. The Jews are the proof that the rules which a people lives by are more influential, ultimately, than economic or social stresses. Lack of such rules (G-d given rules) invites social and economic misery whether one lives in the fertile (but unproductive) African plain or the "economic powerhouse" of the West.

According to the sources I've seen, there is no shortage of grain in the world. The problem is distribution. The world donates tens of thousands of tons of nutrition to Africa. Thugs and thieves and dictators prevent its distribution to those who need it.

The idea of a "contraception campaign" does not deal with the problem. It's like saying "there are is a lot of crime in that neighborhood...we need a campaign to encourage people to move out so we will have fewer crime victims." Again, even a materialist perspective can understand that this is foolish.

The issue of spacing between pregnancies is a choice that women have. However, once one decides that she does want to become pregnant, it is entirely up to the Creator that she become pregnant and that the fetus be healthy. Therefore, the younger one is, the more likelihood of becoming pregnant. To delay becoming pregnant by using the spacing method can lower the chances of becoming pregnant altogether.

As for as the argument that the woman needs a rest, it is difficult to believe that a woman who tasted the beauty of having a child would want to delay having more children. This excuse is superficial. The real reason that a woman wants to employ spacing is that, in her subconscious, she is afraid of pregnancy and labor pains, the difficulty of carrying more weight, and the inability to attend certain functions during her pregnancy period. But more importantly, she is embarrassed by what her friends will say to her: "Oh, no! Again you are pregnant!"

When the woman realizes that this, and not the need for rest, is the real reason, she will wake up and dedicate herself to the Creator, with total joy in the fact that she has the opportunity to have another child.