« Too bad I can't drive left-handed cars | Main | Spare the rod... »

16 December 2004


Allan Schwarb

Doesn’t widespread contraception use and “deliberate childlessness” (contraception, abortion, sterilization are fruit of the same tree) by Christians lead to:

(1) dramatic decline in births;
(2) ubiquitous fornication and adultery since the risk of a “consequence,” nine months later, is removed;
(3) hundreds of thousands of abortions by Christians to hide these “consequences”;
(4) unprecedented divorce and unbiblical “remarriage” (AKA perpetual adultery) rates;
(5) millions of destroyed Christian homes;
(6) shrinking and failing Christian denominations?

Isn’t pervasive use of contraception, abortion and sterilization by Christians anti-Bible, anti-family, anti-Church *and* anti-America?

Therefore, how can “deliberate childlessness” be Christian?


Wow, thanks. I needed a laugh today. But then most "fundamentalist" Christians in America do make me laugh, as they have no knowledge of the true factual history or origins of their faith.


I'm a childfree Christian, and that author is someone I don't wanna know.


Pfft. When we were told to go forth and multiply, it was a time when the human population was maybe a few thousand. Now we have billions; reproducing is not only no longer necessary, it is a burden to the planet we live on because of the abuse we heap upon the Earth.

I see many "fine" examples of parents who should never have reproduced--parents who are cruel, abusive, or absent. Why should those of us who know we do not have the time, energy, patience, or emotional fortitude waste our time having something we most plainly do not want? Why have something I will blame and regret and resent for the rest of my days? A child deserves a parent who not only wants it, but a parent who can care for it to the full extent that a human child needs.

If I don't want it and don't want to care for it, I'm not going to waste my time having it. I don't keep snakes, birds, rodents, or fish as pets for precisely the same reason. I don't want to waste the necessary time caring for such animals. In that way, I respect those animals, as a whole, by not owning them. I respect children, as a whole, by not having them

Moreover, the utter selfishness of this seems to impart that even women who know they would further the progression of illnesses, be at risk for illness, or may even be at risk for death during the course of pregnancy should risk their own lives to have a child who will most likely drain their parents' resources and not give back when that same parent is ill or elderly.

And even furthermore, it even imparts that women who cannot have children are not worthy of the space and oxygen they seem to waste in the eyes of this author.

Some people should not reproduce. I believe firmly this author should be one of them in case their offspring have been brainwashed with the same garbage that women have no self-worth unless they have babies.

Ladies (and child-free gentlemen), you do not need to have children to be a wonderful, contributing member of society. Adoption is a wonderful alternative to adding to the overpopulation of the Earth, and there are other ways to give, such as volunteering and donating to charity.

And even so, if you don't take care of any children at all, you still have value and worth as a human being.

Oh, and if you're gay, you don't need to have or adopt kids, either. Love whomever makes you happy. ;)

Not all Christians are such jerks. I promise.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this blog

  • Google
    search this duck
  • www.flickr.com
    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from budak. Make your own badge here.
  • Nature Blog Network
  • Bringing you closer to Asian nature since 1998!