. . . I am officially (finally) being "snipped" on August 17th. We married when I was 34 and she 30. Now I JUST turned 38 and she is 34 and we know we do not want any kids.
Who will care for you and/or your wife when you are old and feeble?
Aww, nevermind, at least you're fighting global warming!
__________________
Engineering solutions for theological problems.
Despite today's rising cost of living, it remains popular.
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Sir Winston Churchill
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Sir Winston Churchill
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Benjamin Franklin
The "care for us when we are old and feeble" argument is quite literally the only thing we found in FAVOR of having kids. It just wasn't enough and quite frankly, selfish to be the only reason for doing so.
Neither of us are cut out for caring for a baby full time. And one thing we did talk about while we were dating and even today is adopting a 3rd world child. We both want to do this eventually. And by "child" we're talking 4-10 years old. We'll be able to afford this and why be "selfish" and "make our own" when there are so many others that can have a better life here?
The "care for us when we are old and feeble" argument is quite literally the only thing we found in FAVOR of having kids. It just wasn't enough and quite frankly, selfish to be the only reason for doing so.
Neither of us are cut out for caring for a baby full time. And one thing we did talk about while we were dating and even today is adopting a 3rd world child. We both want to do this eventually. And by "child" we're talking 4-10 years old. We'll be able to afford this and why be "selfish" and "make our own" when there are so many others that can have a better life here?
The trouble with this concept is that it may be logically taken down the "slippery slope" until only that which can survive outside the womb is considered "human life," which puts us right where we were in the 70s with abortions approved for the first trimester and then the second.
OP, while I am not fully commited to "the life is in the Blood" view....(I am somewhere between that and NEVER end any pregnancy) I dont agree with this slippery slope idea.
if there is blood, it doesnt matter one iota if a child can survive outside the womb. if there is a single blood cell, then that is a life that must be protected. period.
if there is no blood cell, well that is where we have the discussion.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I do not believe in any abortion. However, the bible says that the life is in the blood. where there is no blood there is no life. (I think...maybe...)
so the pill, when it stops a pregnancy before blood cells form, has not killed an innocent human life.
Actually, the pill most often works by preventing ovulation, thus, there is no egg to be fertilized, and therefore no fertilized egg to implant.
Actually, the pill most often works by preventing ovulation, thus, there is no egg to be fertilized, and therefore no fertilized egg to implant.
I know that. however, there is a very small chance that an egg becomes fertilized. when that happens the pill works to prevent the fertilzied egg from implanting. in this case, you have an abortion of some kind.
the question becomes, is this sinful? my point is that the bible says the life is in the blood. if there is no blood, there cannot be a sin of taking a life (murder).
i think... Im not commetted to that view at this point.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Although it happens all the time and is being encouraged by much of Hollywood, having children after 40 is VERY dangerous. Downs Syndrome itself skyrockets.... going from 1 in 12 for a 46 year old to 1 in 6 for a 50.
Linear Mode
