Contraception? the death of our nations?

[Skandi]

You see a lot of discussion on fora such as these saying that emancipation of women has destroyed the "traditional" family, and reduced birth rates. Well I was thinking that it's not so much emancipation but contraception. If we were still having 6 or 7 children it would be incredibly difficult to leave a supportive partner (and I don't wish to discuss cases where that isn't the case here) and without contraception most of us would have that number or more by the time we were thirty. What are your views on contraception should it only be allowed on medical grounds?

I think my views are obvious enough, I'm 27 and have no children, however despite my personal circumstances I would consider a reduction of availability for certain sections of the population.

[Oresai]

Hmm...I think this is a good topic, but tricky to enter without encountering the different moralities and ethics and how others view contraception within those perameters. :)
My own view is this...I believe every woman should have the choice and access to safe contraception regardless of what society construes as the `ideal` family. The reasons are these...
if a woman is not happy in a marriage, bringing children into it will not heal or solve the problems. She needs to fix the relationship or leave it to form another, more secure one first before having children.
There may, of course, be sound medical reasons for taking contraception.
Finances....I see far, far too many young women, almost children themselves, having child after child whilst relying on state benefits. That is wrong.
I believe a couple should only have children they can afford to support, and that the state should only be resorted to as a last case scenario when ones own resources are exhausted.
Instead I see city streets with teens pushing bairns in buggies with two or three more tagging along behind, spending their days in cliques with other young mums, trawling the shops for the latest baby fashion accessory, many of them single mums or partners of jobless youths. What kind of role model is that for the children? Surely far better if these girls and their partners are educated to know that it is more productive, and wiser by far, to become financially secure themselves and then bring children into the world?
Trouble is, the state makes it all too easy for them to be supported.
In an ideal world, contraception would be safe and available to all who wish to make wise choices in procreation. It would be used in tandem with other life choices such as economics and mental maturity and physical health.
Sadly, it`s far from an ideal world. ;)

[Vulpix]

First of all, reduced birth rates would not be so much of a problem if we didn't have to deal with an invasion of racial aliens!

Furthermore, the hard truth is that having children costs money. A lot of money. How many of us can really afford to have 6 or 7 children today?
I'm 24 and working but even if I wanted to have children now, I could not afford even a single one.

Thirdly, do we really want everyone to reproduce? Obviously that is what would happen in the total absence of contraceptives.

In conclusion, blaming contraception for our ills is way too easy and essentially myopic.

[Arrow Cross]

No, I don't view it as a problem. On the contary, when someone doesn't want to have children, she shouldn't have "accidental" ones. When she wants to, she won't use contraception. A healthy planning is necessery, breeding like rabbits won't solve our real problems. The other races will always do so faster. :rolleyes2:

Quality over quantity, that being said, I fully support families, especially those with more than two children.
As for blaming the emancipation women...it's beyond ridiculous.

[Æmeric]

When were we having 6 or 7 children? I know American women were having that many at the time of independence, but their European sisters weren't. In the latter part of the 19th century after the Civil War, American women were having 4-5 apiece & it was below 4 at the start of the 20th century. I think 2 major reasons for the declining birthrate were 1; the industrial revolution & the urbanization of society & 2; immigration which resulted in competition for jobs & housing. There is not much we can do about urbanization but we can do something about immigration. Fertility rates which went below replacement levels in the 1930s went up to approzimately 3.5 in the late 1950s. This was because of a robust economy & hardly any immigration. I do think womens liberation along with the more easy availability of birth control (the pill) & legalized abortion has had a negative effect on families. The changing social mores in regards to (promiscous) sex & responsibilities (no fault divorce, illegitimacy). But there are still women out there who are not having as many children as they want because of economic factors.

[Revenant]

I think there are much less large families now than say a hundred years ago. My grandfather was one of fourteen and my father one of eight none of my extended family after gen X has any more than two most of those produced after they were thirty or older.

There are many causes of the problems we face, emancipation may play a minor role and contraception doesn't at all imo. It is partly a political problem, immigration and actively anti white policy like institutionalised multiculturalism. Then there's the attitude of my generation (Y) of young white people.

I notice immigrants especially muslims here all have very large families. All things continuing as is demographic trends aren't looking good.

[Skandi]

What I was trying to get at is that there would be no choice but to have children if it wasn't available I'm sure that I would have at least one by now if it were not for the free contraception available. And that therefore I would not have left my long term partner and would still be in the "traditional family"

[Oresai]

With respect Thrymheim, I do get your point, but surely it isn`t always possible to say you`d still be in a long term relationship? :confused:
I agree that too many women give up too easily...I look at so called celebrities and how they husband or wife-swap at the drop of a hat, and how marriage to them appears to be either a meal ticket to be cashed in at the earliest opportunity, or a disposable fad. :(
But for many women (and men) clinging onto a relationship that isn`t working isn`t always the right thing to do.
Domestic abuse cases, for example, which are increasing in Scotland. I married my husband very young, had my three children also very young, but he regularly abused me, cheated and flaunted it in front of me, oh, a long list of things that are too boring to go into here. :)
I`m not a quitter and stuck it for fourteen years. But when he threatened to kill me, string me up from the bannisters for the kids to find, then kill himself, well, it was time to get out. ;)
So there I was, a single parent. Working as a cleaner in a Uni to support myself and the bairns. :)
I believe I made a success of motherhood, if not marriage, but even now know that the marriage failing was not my doing. :)

Like Revenant pointed out, I notice too that immigrants tend to have large families. And they DO drain the benefits system and take full advantage of government hand outs and other schemes that, it seems, native Brits have to fight tooth and claw to receive even when it`s their right.
Not sure the answer is to breed more, though, and am more inclined to believe the answer might lie in turfing the immigrants out of the country and taking away the ease with which they can claim everything left right and centre in Britain, to discourage more coming in.
I also support schemes in which immigrants must prove they are of long term value to the UK if they wish to come here, and where they should be allowed in only on a trial basis, reviewable after set times, and where they must prove they can integrate into British society and culture.

I won`t hold my breath for any of that, however. :)

So I think, maybe in Britain at least, we could deal with the immigration problem and our financial crisis before adding to the strain upon the system with extra mouths to feed. We need to return to a place of strength in which we can comfortably afford to support ourselves and our offspring without holding out the begging bowl to other nations.
Then we can look at increase. :)
Thought provoking topic. :)

[Skandi]

With respect Thrymheim, I do get your point, but surely it isn`t always possible to say you`d still be in a long term relationship? :confused:

I'm afraid to say I left out of sheer boredom and not really for any good reason, that was 4 years ago now and I still wonder if it was the right choice!

[lei.talk]

...there would be no choice but to have children...if it were not for the free contraception available. And that therefore I would not have left my long-term partner and would still be in the "traditional family"...I'm afraid to say I left out of sheer boredom and...I still wonder if it was the right choice!if a relationship is not reciprocally beneficial,
the cheated party should end the relationship.

the desire to be at either end of a leash
is - if examined - of psycho-pathological origin
and is compounded, if indulged.

my son's mother and i have no other children
(aside from a friend's grand-daughter (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=76025) he and i adopted ;)) -

yet, every morning we share our delight
over awakening together

and each evening
we express our appreciation
of how the day was improved by the other's presence

sans contraceptive devices or chemicals:

mutually epiphanic amatory conjunctions are manifold.

[Absinthe]

I'm on the pill because I'm not financially and sentimentally ready to have a child.

Maybe that seems selfish - I have to admit being phobic due to the circumstances I was put through, being an unwanted pregnancy myself.
Growing up in a broken home with a mother gone neurotic because of the social pressures she received for being a single mother in a conservative, theocratic society like Greece.

I don't want no child of mine suffering the same I went through in childhood. Hence I don't want to become pregnant until I am absolutely sure that the child will grow up in a loving home and we'll have enough to sustain it. My relationship is also on a 'trial period', so to speak, so I don't want to have kids with him unless i'm absolutely convinced of his character.

To answer the original question:

Yes, if contraceptives were not available I would probably have a bunch of kids right now. :p
But is that an end in itself? What's the point of bringing children to this world if you can't ensure them a life of quality?

[GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS]

"When we were young we didn't have those fancy birth control methods... Like pulling out."

The first poster said if it were not for contraceptions women would have 6-7 kids before the 30's. Howabout restraining yourself? We're not savage negroes who needs to hump everyone and everything. Besides, who want to be an old parent anyway? I know people who'll soon retire (65+) and have children that are 16. I don't wanna be like that.

My mom's a grand mom these days and she's 45, so she still has alot of energy and playfulness to play with her grand kids. That's how it's supposed to be.

[Loyalist]

Contraceptives have certainly had a negative impact on our ideal of the family, and usurped women's traditional role in society. That aside, they have also contributed to a moral decline as well. Permitting a relatively consequence-free environment, more youth are becoming sexually active, and at increasingly younger ages. As a result, not only are the institutions and ideals of marriage and monogamy threatened, but the spread of disease, as well as teen pregnancy when these steps fail, continues to rise. I am not advocating the total abolition of contraceptives, but instead believe restrictions should be made to curb the negative elements as aforementioned, while continuing to make preventative measures available to responsible individuals who are not in a viable position to raise children.

[Skandi]

Howabout restraining yourself? We're not savage negroes who needs to hump everyone and everything.


Have you tried having a working relationship without sex? After the first time that is? Trust me even if you don't have it any more than once a week you'll still have a child approximately every two years and they'll only be that far apart if she breast feeds full time.

Equally I never suggested for one second that you should hump "everyone and everything" I'm not like your namesake! One partner is quite enough to breed.

[Revenant]

One partner is quite enough to breed.

Indeed, even finding that one is harder and harder these days. I really am at a loss to explain as to why western women and men now are so inept at forming normal nuclear families at a reasonable age.

[GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS]

Have you tried having a working relationship without sex? After the first time that is? Trust me even if you don't have it any more than once a week you'll still have a child approximately every two years and they'll only be that far apart if she breast feeds full time.

No I haven't, but I have had a working relationship without contraceptions.


Equally I never suggested for one second that you should hump "everyone and everything" I'm not like your namesake! One partner is quite enough to breed.

Yeah, let's resort to name calling.

But in essence, that's what negroes do. They do hump everything they can, and see where they are. White man can do better, and we don't need unnatural help in any way. I thank the heavens every day I was born a white man (well, boy at the time of birth :D), and don't suffer the chronical illness that is synonymous to other races, like the libido on overdrive in the negro. This has spared us the extreme poverty of Africa, aswell as AIDS infective areas.

[Absinthe]

I believe the real question is here is not about contraception but about the quality in our modern relationships and marriages.

Why do people use contraception? Why are people sceptical about marriage and family? Why the two sexes find it impossible to communicate and form meaningful relationships?

Half a century ago it was enough for a man and a woman to fall in love and start a family. They knew they would endure hardships. They knew they'd both have to sweat their bottoms off to raise a family. But it was ok, because everyone was doing that.

What changed?

I believe one major factor is our modern, materialist lifestyles and mindless consumerism.

People are striving more and more towards artificial needs, and seeeking less for the essence of life. Before, a few things (just the necessary) were enough, now everyone wants more and better of things they don't actually need.

To give an example:

I was born in an upped-middle class family and yet I grew up wearing my cousins' clothes. Not because we couldn't afford it; but because the sense of frugality was still strong inside us.
Why throw away perfectly wearable clothes if another child can wear them? Why not save the money to buy something more useful?

Now, 15 years later, my teenage siblings are going to expensive private schools and part of their student curriculum is to wear the latest fashion!
My dad doesn't just buy expensive brands for them --but also clothes in perfect condition (worn no more than 10 times) are thrown away because they're last season!

So the expenses for my dad are humongous. You'll say here, why pay a private school?

Well, I went to a public school at the time were there were no immigrants. Now, each public school is almost 80% multicultural and multiracial and it's only the greeks that cannot afford it that send their kids at those... :(
And they avoid it, not because they're racialists, but because those schools are in fact the most violent, and the educational standards are lowered just to meet the demands of the immigrants.

Now, asides from the child expenses...consumerism extends to the relationship field, making it impossible for young people to love each other unconditionally...

Part of my job here as a columnist is being a relationships advisor (now you can LOL at me :o) ...and the letters I get, you cannot imagine!
It's so sad and pathetic to hear young people caring only about their own welfare and searching for a victim with money...
Young women in Greece (and I believe most of the Western world) are looking for a guy with a fancy car, a prestigeous job and expensive habits...even when themselves are lower class (or should I say, especially if they are lower class)...

So the purpose of marriage for women is financial well-being and the purpose of marriage for men is to 'buy' a wife to breed for them and have a douzen of mistresses on the side.

The men who are lower and working class simply do not stand a chance with native women! So they result to immigrant women who marry them for residence permits.

I'm sorry for derailing the topic, but the issue goes far beyond contraception. It's problematic societies we live in, rotten constitutions and the loss of masculinity and femininity in traditional gender roles...our increasing greed and materialism...
Let alone the multicultural hell we are going to bring our kids into.
Should all of those conditions not exist, I'm sure that extremely few, if any, would use contraception. What would be the need?

I'm 30 now, I would love to have had 2-3 kids by now. I'll be lucky if I manage to have one. But under all those circumstances, I'd rather see be childless and sleep at ease than have a child growing up in this flaming hell (-and for Athens, the 'flaming hell' is literal) ... :(

[lei.talk]

Have you tried having a working relationship without sex?
After the first time that is? Trust me...

perhaps, i was insufficiently explicative (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2928#post2928)?

during the decades before the birth of my son,
my partners and i
frequently shared intense bonding-pleasures

and in the decades after the birth of our son,
his mother and i - even more frequently -
share those same joys.

girls from the port of µυτιλήνη (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbos_Island)
were extremely popular at ancient grecian symposia
for their novel (to the gender-segregated greek society)
and enthusiastic facility
for non-procreational aphroditic congress
with the male attendees.

the conception of children
is not a necessary concomitant to

the psychological validation of physical union
with a person of such virtue
as to be desireable.

if this was understood thousands of years ago,

why should intelligent, educated persons
produce a child
for whom they lack the resources to properly care

and produce more
before the first child is adequately developed?

if a prospective mate
insists on conflating pleasure and pregnancy,
one should be unsurprised
to encounter other neurotic mis-conceptions
guaranteed to ruin one's life.

[SouthernBoy]

What are your views on contraception should it only be allowed on medical grounds? It should be freely available. :)
Furthermore, the hard truth is that having children costs money. A lot of money. How many of us can really afford to have 6 or 7 children today?
I'm 24 and working but even if I wanted to have children now, I could not afford even a single one. What does that even mean?

You could not feed a child? You could not clothe a child? You could not shelter a child? Or does it mean that the "quality of life" of that child wouldn't be up to your standards?
Maybe that seems selfish - I have to admit being phobic due to the circumstances I was put through, being an unwanted pregnancy myself. Did you deserve to be conceived?
What's the point of bringing children to this world if you can't ensure them a life of quality?I'm tired of this "I brought you into this world and I can take you out" nonsense. God conceives life and no one else.

The point is that good people deserve to be conceived. You can talk about "quality of life" until you have convinced yourself that only millionaires can raise children. There is nothing wrong with wanting your child to have a good life, but if you are a good person you should have children.
why should intelligent, educated persons
produce a child
for whom they lack the resources to properly care? Good intelligent people deserve to be conceived. What is "proper care" anyway? Part of intelligence is the ability to overcome adversity. Give me ten poor geniuses over one rich one.

[Vulpix]

It means that I don't think my current income would consistently suffice to cover all the increased costs that a baby would entail.
In addition there's my debt, and the possibility of being fired and hence unemployed for a long time. These are just the short term financial considerations.


What does that even mean?

You could not feed a child? You could not clothe a child? You could not shelter a child? Or does it mean that the "quality of life" of that child wouldn't be up to your standards?

[Oresai]

I'm tired of this "I brought you into this world and I can take you out" nonsense. God conceives life and no one else.

Yes? Which one, precisely? :rolleyes:
I`m also tired of the `god makes all the decisions` nonsense. For one, what about the great majority of non christians in the world? For another, we surely have the ability to self determine our own lives, without blaming it all on `god`.
It is right and fitting that people use their intelligence to know when they can afford to maintain a family, to the best of their abilities. That self responsibility removes the strain for an already ailing social system that supports the plebs who breed without clear thought, jumping on the benefits bandwagon, ensuring that tax payers subsidise their families, and providing no decent role model for their children other than that of get pregnant young, get a state house and state education, live on the dole (or whatever benefit) for as long as they`ll let you....

Like it or not, both `good` and `bad` people have children. Breeding has nothing to do with god, and all to do with our own selves.
Proper care surely means the simplest of things, such as being able to provide enough food, decent shelter and recourse to a decent education, with all the trappings of ordinary life in between...clothes, medical care, etc...none of it comes free and all the fighting in the world can often not be enough to overcome adversity. I speak from the experience of one who is living through, and fighting against, a recession, like so many others. I am glad my own children are grown now, for I`d hate to conceive a child in such financially uncertain times.
Finances are crucially important as to whether or not children should be brought into the world. We each have a responsibility towards our communities and society at large to not place too great a strain upon it`s limited resources. That means being able to earn enough to support not only our own selves, but any children we have.
I applaud those here who have said they cannot afford to have a child at the present time, much as they would like to. That is great self discipline and an application of responsibility that deserves to be lauded.
And that, is down to their own intelligence, and sound common sense. And nothing to do with god. Whichever one it is. ;)

[Alison]

You see a lot of discussion on fora such as these saying that emancipation of women has destroyed the "traditional" family, and reduced birth rates. Well I was thinking that it's not so much emancipation but contraception. If we were still having 6 or 7 children it would be incredibly difficult to leave a supportive partner (and I don't wish to discuss cases where that isn't the case here) and without contraception most of us would have that number or more by the time we were thirty. What are your views on contraception should it only be allowed on medical grounds?

I think my views are obvious enough, I'm 27 and have no children, however despite my personal circumstances I would consider a reduction of availability for certain sections of the population.

I believe in contraception as a basic NEED! People who are responsible will have as many children as they can afford, and no more, unless there's an oopsie.

In countries where people have children they can't afford, nature takes care of it by causing a situation where starvation and disease gets rid of the excess population. Sad but true.

[SouthernBoy]

Yes? Which one, precisely? :rolleyes: I meant the God. ;)
I`m also tired of the `god makes all the decisions` nonsense. For one, what about the great majority of non christians in the world? What about them?
For another, we surely have the ability to self determine our own lives, without blaming it all on `god`. There is a quotation that goes, "they are the most enslaved that think themselves free, because they never think to look for the chains."

A basic understanding of physics makes it apparent we do not determine our own lives.
It is right and fitting that people use their intelligence to know when they can afford to maintain a family, to the best of their abilities. "Right and fitting" that the intelligent make excuses for dysgenics?
And that, is down to their own intelligence, and sound common sense. And nothing to do with god. Whichever one it is. You are applauding the people who should have children the most for not having children.

[Oresai]

I am applauding them for self discipline and responsibility. ;)
As for the rest...well, heard it all before. Only one more reason I`m not christian....no herd mentality. :D

[Goswinus]

Since the Biblical God - the no-so-perfect Demiurge of the Gnostics, actually - tinkers with the universe and human affairs, and we're created in his image, it follows that we emulate him, and meddle with trials and errors with the physical world... In both cases, God and man wants some recognition, fame and profits, when we don't get the revenues, we have some horrible tantrums and make a mess around the world. And we proof to be quite coercive too in having our message through and have the masses goose-stepping on our tune... We blame apostates and scapegoats, but never ourselves... so much for the perfect God and the free-willed homo sapiens, sadly enough.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. Without contraception, intelligent and responsible people would still avoid having children because they could restrain themselves, whereas the less intelligent and irresponsible would end up having even more children.



Indeed, even finding that one is harder and harder these days. I really am at a loss to explain as to why western women and men now are so inept at forming normal nuclear families at a reasonable age.


I believe the real question is here is not about contraception but about the quality in our modern relationships and marriages.

Why do people use contraception? Why are people sceptical about marriage and family? Why the two sexes find it impossible to communicate and form meaningful relationships?

Half a century ago it was enough for a man and a woman to fall in love and start a family. They knew they would endure hardships. They knew they'd both have to sweat their bottoms off to raise a family. But it was ok, because everyone was doing that.

I think both because society is becoming more complex, and people are more perfectionist


Young women in Greece (and I believe most of the Western world) are looking for a guy with a fancy car, a prestigeous job and expensive habits...even when themselves are lower class (or should I say, especially if they are lower class)...

That's an example of the perfectionist mentality, taking a natural and normally good thing to an extreme. It's reasonable-and good-for women to expect men to have some sort of financial ability: having their own vehicle and place to live, not having expensive habits or massive credit card debt, having either a job or some kind of education or job training. But too many today either take this to an extreme as in your example, looking for a guy with a fancy car, prestigious job, works out every day, goes to the hair salon every other week and wears expensive clothes&jewelry...or else they don't take such things into account at all, and date an unemployed tattooed convict who lives in his mom's basement, often a nonwhite.

In the past people had hobbies, extended family, church/ethnic and other civic organizations to fulfill their social needs...now the demand is placed on one's partner to fulfill all these as well.

Also when society was less complex and less diverse, it was easier to find someone with the same needs: everyone around you was the same ethnicity, religion, not as many differences in class/educational level, wanting children was the default and not something that had to be discussed and negotiated...the list of 'things to consider in a potential mate' is 10-20 times as long as it was a couple generations ago.

[safinator]

Imagine a jar with one bacteria in it that divides every minute, doubling the population. The jar is so big that it takes a year for it to be completely filled. Now, when is it half full? Only one minute before midnight on the last day of the year is the correct answer. So, at one minute before midnight on the last day of the year all the bacteria in the jar think they have only used up 1/2 of their time, but they are wrong. The moral of the story is: When you are half way through a limited resource under exponential growth, you have one more doubling period left before it is all gone.

Let's now look at the Earth like it is the jar, and the people like they are the bacteria. Fact #1, oil is a limited resource. Fact #2, the farming system of the modern world is structured to turn oil into food. Fact #3, the world demand for oil doubles about every 10 to 15 years depending upon the economy. Fact #4, we reached the halfway point of all the world's oil reserves around 2005. Fact #5, we have about a 5 to 10 year's supply of oil left before it runs out, given we continue to increase need exponentially. Fact #6, people will die from starvation and disease by the billions when the oil runs out.

[Bobby Martnen]

Contraception, and anyone who uses it, is disgusting and degenerate. It should be banned.