Caspar, I agree with you on so many levels. I want to say that first.
We are pregnant with number two right now, and Liv is only 15 months old. And like Rob has said before, he came from a family of 7. And for the most part I intend to use extended breastfeeding as a means to space children, since this is both what is best for my body and for my babies. In fact, I have heard that with every year that you breast feed your risk of cancer is decreased. And the decrease is a dramatic one when you go from year four to year five (I'm not the kind of person who keeps these sorts of things for future reference, so you'll just have to take my word for it, I read it somewhere.)
I guess my only concerns with the whole of your argument are the two questions which will follow. They are disjointed and fragmented since I have only been married for two years and haven't spent any time before engagement thinking about these issues. This is all new to me.
Also, I apologize but I have not read your last post in depth since I am deathly ill and exhausted with morning (all day) sickness. I promise I will get to it. These questions have been burning in my head and it kept me up from 2:30 to 5 am last night, and I just needed to ask.
Anyways... My first question:
Is it sinful (since you propose that all contraception is sinful) to contracept in order to adopt, in your opinion? The adoption process takes up to two years, and even longer if you intend to do so internationally. One of the stipulations of most, if not all adoption agencies is that you cannot become pregnant during the adoption process.
This isn't just some far fetched out there question to slip you up. I very much desire to adopt internationally. In order to do so most countries require that you have 4 or less natural children. So I will be at four children around 30, God willing, and far from done with my fertile years. In order to adopt I will need to contracept for at least two years.
If this is not a sin, then what other circumstances are not sinful contraception?
If it is a sin, and just "the lesser of two evils" then that leads me to my next question:
When one says something is less of a sin than another thing, aren't we just comparing specks and logs?
It sounds like the guy in the temple thanking God that at least he's not like that tax collector. "Sure I sin God, it's unavoidable, but I always try to choose the lesser of two evils."
I do not mean to be sarcastic. I agreed with you at first, but the more I think about these things the more what your saying sounds to me like a sort of negative pietism (which I say with the most respect that I can).
Thanks for the deviation from your systematic argument... We can now continue with your regularly scheduled blog...