Economics, Babes, and a Bedside Ethos

The August 2006 issue of 'Christianity Today' just hit the newsstands. In it there is an article by Leslie Leyland Fields entitled 'The Case for Kids: A defense of the large family by a six-time breeder.'' (Unfortunately, as of this moment this article is not yet available on the web.)

Towards the end of her article she takes up the child-bearing and child-rearing issue that I fear rules in the hearts of many a Christian married-couple, keeping them from having children more than once, yet, or at all. And what is the issue? The cost of children. Economics. The author of the article writes, "It no longer makes economic sense to have a child at all. Books, articles, and internet calculators coolly estimate the financial liability of raising a child to adulthood and arrive at staggering figures, ranging from $700,000 to $1.5 million per child. By these calculations, Americans should stop having children altogether." (And might I add that by these calculations the childless seminarian and his wife need not pretend that the seminary studies are what pose the insurmountable economic hurdle to the Lord's blessing of children within their marriage. More honestly, in the face of the dollars sited above, it would seem that the chosen career path would pose a more real and perennial economic threat. But, I digress.)

The author continues:

Even after considering the cost of education, a typical child in the U.S. consumes 28 percent less than the typical working-age adult, while elders consume 27 percent more, mostly in health-related expenses. How do we order and feed such a top-heavy, resource-consuming society of elders – a demographic of which most who read this article are a part? Who will produce the goods needed to keep the nation’s engines and industries running? When our self-reliance wears out, when our self-authenticated minds and our spirituality unfettered and independent souls grow dim with age, who will feed and sustain us? Who will wheel us into surgery, deliver our packages, grow our food, research and formulate the medications that enable us to live longer and better? In an overburdened medical system, who will decide whether or not our lives still have value when our medical costs outweigh our economic worth? (Italics added) In all of this, we will depend on the actions and judgments of other peoples’ children.

We, as a Christian community, have already heard the first gasps, even our own, as we learn of the not-uncommon-university-lectured-ethos and the real-life-instances that ‘pull-the-plug’ on ‘one of the least of these’ because ‘medical costs outweigh… economic worth’. Yet seldom is the self-reflection (Leslie Leyland Fields excluded) that would lead the same gasping Christian community to take a step back and see such an ethos and such instances as the paradoxical progeny of their own children who were never born. And why weren’t they born? Because the cost of such children was deemed too great an economic hurdle – this from a generation of would be parents entitled to cable tv, cell-phones, dsl, foreign travel, a health club membership, and automobiles hardly the jalopies their grandparents started out with – a generation of which I am chief of sinners.

I am looking forward to your comments, thoughts, and discussion.

Live births from "artificial" sperm

This story reminds me of an interesting query I have posed before. Christians are proud to have the slogan and belief that "life begins at conception." But what does that specifically mean? How do we know exactly when in the process of human reproduction that a soul is implicated in the flesh any more than we do when it is that a soul leaves the body in the process of death? A soul is supernatural and beyond the explanation of science.

As with the concept of inserting of genetic material into a human egg in cloning, the potential joining of laboratory created sperm and human eggs from the above linked story reminds me of this question in my mind. Even in normal human sexual reproduction, at what exact point in the PROCESS of fertilization is the soul implicated? Is the soul implicated at the point of:

Penetration by the sperm of the egg's zona pellucida?
Entry of the single winning sperm into the perivitelline space of the egg?
Fusion of the sperm with the egg's plasma membrane?
The egg's cortical reaction causing the zona pellucida to become "hardened " and refractory (preventing other sperm from entering)?
Entry of the sperm contents into the cytoplasm of the egg?
Formation of egg and sperm pronuclei through the reactivation of the cell cycles?
(Pronuclear formation takes place a few hours after penetration of the sperm into the egg)
Following anaphase II, when the egg chromosomes remaining in the cytoplasm disperse and the female pronucleus forms?
When the sperm nucleus is decondensed and transformed into a male pronucleus?
The two pronuclei move towards the egg center?
Pronuclear envelope breakdown?
The spatial organization of microtubule arrays by the centrosome, connecting the egg and sperm chromosomes?
Final intermixing of the maternally and paternally derived chromosomes to establish the genome of the embryo?
Preparation for the first cell division?

Most people know little of the science of reproduction and think that "fertilization" is a simple process which occurs in the blink of an eye. Not so. The intricate saga of fertilization can and does fail at any of the above amazing processes. Even my simple summary of some of the milestones only scratches the surface of all the intricate biochemical events involved, many of which science is yet (if ever) to discover. Which of these is the "critical event?" Scripture certainly does not tell us. Why?

The answer to this question in my opinion is simple. It happens when God wants it to. The more important implication of this question and its answer is that we shouldn't be messing around with what is solely God's territory in the first place!

"Life begins at conception?" What does that mean? How is that related to God's plan other than in a negative sense in which we rightly say that abortion is murder? Why do we let the abortion debate define God's plan of life?

Human life began with God's breath of life into Adam. It continued in his taking of Eve out of Adam. It continued with the joining of the two in marital relations, ordained by God, and by which God created offspring of Adam and Eve. Life continues today with the joining together of man and woman, if and when God desires that joining to result in the gift of offspring.

Does every joining together of egg and sperm (fertilization?) create life? Not every joining together of man and woman does. It is God's business when and if such unions between man and wife, and sperm and egg, result in life.

We are given the gift of marital love and the one-flesh union. God adds the gift of children if and when he so pleases, just as he gives spiritual life through the gift of faith if and when he so pleases. If we follow God's design, these questions about how life is conceived do not need to even be asked, let alone answered. In fact, it is better we not ask or answer them, just as it is better not to ask why some are saved and not others.

So what's my point? Abortion is wrong for the same reason contraception is wrong, and for the same reason that human cloning and "artificial sperm" are wrong. They are all contrary to God's plan for the union of man and woman. They are all against God's will. Why do we always seek to rank sins, thinking abortion worse than contraception? Why are abortifacient birth control methods considered so much worse than non-abortifacient methods?

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." [James 2:10]

"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." [Matthew 5:18]

The law convicts me just as severely as the abortionist. I am contraceptive at heart even though I employ no overt methods of family planning. I am a rebel against God as much as those who do employ such methods... even as much as those who abort their children, although I desire to think myself better.

"All Have Sinned and Fall Short of the Glory of God." [Romans 3:23]

Yet Christ forgives us all, having given Himself for the life of the world.

"And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly: that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?" [Romans 5:20-6:2]

I sin horribly every day, being guilty of violating the whole law ... yet struggling with sin (living a life of repentance) by God's grace is a far cry from living in sin (unrepentant).

"O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!" [Romans 7:24-25]

Malthus & The Confessions

One reason that is often put forth in favor of the contraceptive age is world over-population. This has seldom been brought up on this blog (if ever) but deserves attention because it does appear from time to time. Certainly there are secularists who cheer the contraceptive age for this reason. But, we must also take note that there are Christians who take up this battle-cry, and even Lutherans.

Dr. Alfred M. Rehwinkel (professor of Christian Ethics at Concordia Seminary - St. Louis for 15+ in the '40s and '50s) in his book 'Planned Parenthood' even gave a nod to this belief: "A nation that is not able or willing to propogate itself is doomed and sooner or later will have to make room for a more virile race... But on the other hand a nation which propagates more rapidly than the available or potential food supply is also headed for serious trouble." Certainly, there appears to be a simple and reasonable logic in his statement - People need food. The land can only produce so much food. If we have more mouths to feed than the land can produce food, we are in trouble.

This line of thinking was first made popular and championed by a british demographer and economist Thomas Robert Thomas Malthus (1776 - 1834). His concern was that human population as he observed it grows geometicly (1, 2, 4, 8, 16) while food supply only grows arithmeticly (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). His line of thinking, which has been expanded upon, championed, refuted, and re-tooled at times, is called Malthusianism.

Malthusianism today asserts simply that the earth has been duly filled. The earth is populated. It cannot handle more humanity. Period. Of course, this is something we think about as the world's population is now well over 7 billion souls. That's a big number after all (like the sands on the seashore or the stars in the sky) that has the ability to play on our fears and anxieties over whether the earth can provide for "all that I need to support this body and life" - as if the earth were doing the providing on its own. Maybe then you will understand my surprise when in my study of the Confessions I recently noticed for the first time that during the Reformation this 'full earth' argument was being put forth when the world population was just over 450million. It was an argument which along with its pernicious implications the Confessors rejected:

First, Genesis [1:28] teaches that human beings were created to be fruitful… Our opponents trivialize these arguments. They say that in the beginning there was a command to fill the earth, but now that the earth has been filled marriage is not commanded. Look at their clever argument! The Word of God formed human nature in such a way that it may be fruitful not only at the beginning of creation but as long as this physical nature of ours exists. Likewise, the earth became fruitful by this Word [Gen.1:11]: “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed.” Because of this ordinance, the earth commenced to produce plants, not only in the beginning, but yearly the fields are clothed as long as this natural order exists. Therefore, just as the nature of the earth cannot be changed by human laws, so neither can human nature be changed by vows or by human law without a special act of God.
Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Kolb/Wengert p. 249.

Noteworthy is how they considered an attack upon fruitfulness/procreation to be none other than an attack on the Lord's institution of marriage. "Our opponents trivialize these arguments. They say that in the beginning there was a command to fill the earth, but now that the earth has been filled marriage is not commanded."

I look forward to your thoughts and comments.

NFP and Embryonic Death

The Journal of Medical Ethics:

"Given certain plausible empirical assumptions, the rhythm method may well be responsible for a much higher number of embryonic deaths than some other contraceptive techniques."

I have read other sources on this argument before, and have related it to others in my many writings and arguments against all forms of contraception. I have long criticized the Roman Catholic approval of NFP (natural family planning) as hypocritical on a theological level, regardless of any abortifacient arguments. In addition, I believe the scientific assumptions made in this research article are quite plausible, given the moderate knowledge of human reproductive physiology I have. The paper was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics (one of the British Medical Journal's publications).

As with the "unproven" assumptions we have showing hormonal birth control (the Pill, etc.) to have an abortifacient component, why would anyone knowingly employ a method of family planning which may lead to increased risks of death for the unborn?

Of course most of you know that according to my position this is a moot point. Regardless of the abortifacient nature of all the favored methods of family planning, ALL FAMILY PLANNING is against God's Word. My position does, however, allow for the potential application of ethical principles (casuistry) according to the Lutheran ethic of "conflicting absolutes," which leads us to choose the lesser evil and throw ourselves on the mercy of Christ.

Caspar

UPDATE: In response to his critics, the author of the article in the Journal of Medical Ethics has posted a reply on the British Medical Journal website. The reply gives further official documentation to his argument and does a good job of answering the most common objections voiced to his original article.

LQ Discussion of Gen. 1:28 Heating Up Again!

The discussion continues because the first one was locked by the moderator. The beginning of this new one is pretty funny (according to my dry style of humor) as you read the dialogue, especially the grammar comments (which have already been archived). Be sure to check out the "archive(s)" because every 30 posts are archived and linked at the top of the page.

Pr. Rolf Preus Chimes in on Family Planning

Always a pastor in his theology, Pr. Rolf Preus gives his perspective...

Here are some reasons why the "Be fruitful and multiply" command and the discussion of birth control in general evoke such strong emotional responses that make a sober and reasonable discussion based on the Scriptures extremely difficult.

1. There has been a rapid and quite radical change in the views held within the church on the subject of birth control during the past two or three generations.

2. The conceiving, bearing, and rearing of children involves so much in a person's life that our discussions will inevitably become very personal.

3. There is a tendency toward antinomianism within the confessional movement today, likely a reaction against the intrusion of Reformed theology among us.

4. The command, "Be fruitful and multiply" is at least as much blessing and promise as it is command so that focusing on the law might not bring out the whole intent of this command.

5. There are cases where infertility or other problems make the fulfillment of the command impossible or dangerous and these cases are made prominent in an argument that is of a more general nature.

6. There is little if any theological leadership in defense of the traditional teaching on this subject.

7. The change in teaching has occurred at the same time that effective birth control methods have been introduced, leading one to assume that had the technology been available hundreds of years ago the change in thinking would have taken place hundreds of years ago.

8. We all impute personal motives and ulterior motives to those with whom we disagree, and in a discussion of a topic that by its nature includes very personal matters it is inevitable that the argument will at times descend into acrimony. Too bad, but that's human nature.

Having said all of this, may I make a couple of very personal observations?

First, when God gives you gift after gift after gift He humbles you by His generosity unless you are a complete ingrate. A man blessed with a beautiful, healthy, pious, Christian wife to whom God gives a dozen children should humble himself before God in gratitude every day.

Second, gift is gift. Gift isn't imposed. We don't require attendance at private confession or the Lord's Supper as a matter of law. Some folks cannot take the Sacrament of the Altar. They are still Christians who have all of the spiritual blessings God has to give. Some people cannot receive children. They are not less than those who can.

Third, God does provide for His children. How? I never know. Mostly through kind and generous people. Sometimes Christians we have never met.

Finally, the main point of view of traditionalists is that children are, objectively, blessings from God. This is our argument. God blessed them and said be fruitful and multiply. That's the issue. That's what God says and that's what I believe and when my children face troubles in life and I worry about this or that I hold up before me God's word of blessing here, the inspired and inerrant word of God says that my children are God's blessings to me.

Those who don't entirely share the traditionalist approach to this topic may assume that we are standing in judgment of them so I always encourage traditionalists to state our case in terms emphasizing God's blessing rather than God's law.

My two cents worth on this topic.

'Rebel Without an Issue'

The following is an excerpt from Touchstone Magazine written by R. Albert Mohler, Jr., on Married Couples Who Won’t Have Children.

Joe and Deb Schum aren’t worried about baby-proofing their house or buying a car seat. They don’t intend ever to have children. As a matter of fact, they are proud of their childlessness. According to a report in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “The Schums are part of a growing number of couples across the country for whom kids don’t factor in the marriage equation.”

The nation’s birthrate fell in 2002 to a historic low of 66.9 births per 1,000 women age 15 to 44. That represents a decline of 43 percent since just 1960. “Many childless couples,” according to the report, “revel in their decision, despite badgering from baffled mothers and friends. Others struggle with the choice before keeping the house kid-free...”

Click here to read the remainder of the article.

A Short, But Revealing, Dialogue

God: "Be fruitful and multiply!"

Satan: "Um, well, maybe right now wouldn't be the best time!"

Fruitful As A Whole? Part II.

John Paul II offered a different perspective than the '81 CTCR document on the matter in 'The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan':

In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.

Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.

To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom, that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life.

Fruitful As A Whole? Part I.

In the 1981 CTCR report entitled 'Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective' there has always been a line of reasoning that has not set well with me.

On pg. 19 we read: "In view of the Biblical command and the blessing to 'be fruitful and multiply,' it is to be expected that marriage will not ordinarily be voluntarily childless. But, in the absence of Scriptural prohibition, there need be no objection to contraception within a marital union which is, as a whole, fruitful."

Two things bother me here: First, it is implied here that Scripture's lack of prohibition on a topic is equivalent to license. While it is true that we dare not add to scripture, does not scripture inform us as members of the Body of Christ how to navigate in the midst of any number of topics that the Word is not explicit about? (Of course, even that is working with their assumption that Scripture is silent on the matter - something our older brothers and fathers in the faith who were not as wise in the wisdom of the world would have scoffed at.)

Second, and more disturbing to me is the culmination which refers to marriages being O.K. which are "as a whole, fruitful." Is this really a helpful way to talk about this? I would suggest not. Wouldn't it be alarming to arrive at a church in Timesgoneby where the door-to-missions was closed because the Great Mission Fest of '87 had seen the Word of the Lord bring a family of four to the Faith. Say what you will, but the Bride of Christ Timesgoneby was "as a whole, fruitful."

Yet, when it comes to that other Bride and Groom - the Sons of Adam and the daughter's of Eve - whose marriage gives witness to the Lord Jesus the Christ - do we really do well to qualify the Lord's command/promise to be fruitful and multiply with "as a whole"? Again, I would suggest not.

In an effort to guard against taking a strong, historic, orthodox church (which they feared to be legalism?), they have entered into a whole new legalism - splitting hairs, qualifying the Lord's command/promise, and demonstrating to the Lord their faithfulness to his command by quantifying for Him their fruit.

Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective - CTCR 1981

The natural fertility in a healthy woman. Part 2

We're on to breastfeeding: God's intended food for babies; and as I am about to discuss, God's intended way to heal a woman from the physical trauma of birth...

Since we're talking about the fertility of a healthy woman, I won't take the time to discuss all the wonderful benefits of breastfeeding for children, though it is not hard to find information on it. I will say, though, that supplemental formula is NOT the "next best thing."

The way breastfeeding works into a woman's fertility, and overall health, begins right at birth. The uterus, which has just spent the last 40 weeks growing from less that one pound to almost 20 pounds is all stretched out and has worked harder than any other muscle in a woman's body. Everything that was inside it is now gone and all you have left is a big empty worn out bag. Breastfeeding, if attended to immediately after birth will help a woman's uterus to work itself back into shape, and will also help eliminate the after-bleeding that can cause a woman to hemorrhage after birth.

It does this because nipple stimulation causes the hormonal release of natural oxytocins, the hormone responsible for uterine contractions. Some women who practice extended breastfeeding (up to two years and beyond) have been known to rely on their nursing toddlers to help augment a stalled labor instead of resorting to the synthetic version of oxytocin: Pitocin, the ob-gyn's drug of choice. Pitocin is also used regularly, even in women who've birthed naturally, to contract her uterus because doctor's take our babies away immediately after the birth to do all sorts of tests. But the natural nursing relationship of mother and baby is strong enough on its own to shrink down the uterus, work out the placenta, and close up the bleeding openings that the placenta leaves behind on the uterine wall.

Breastfeeding is so effective at shrinking a woman's uterus, in fact, that the "after pains" that came from nursing my newborn Olivia were so severe that I was in tears each nursing session for three days after her birth. She was an expert eater from the moment she was born, and my uterus shrank back to an immeasurable size before I left the hospital.

A less immediate benefit of nursing is the Amenorrhea, or lack of menstrual period, that it creates. A woman who is exclusively breastfeeding her baby will experience this Amenorrhea for the first 2 months to 2 years after birth. That does not mean that there won't be after-bleeding, or lochea, which is present after every vaginal birth for about 3 to 6 weeks, but once the lochea is finished there will be a break in the woman's "monthly" cycle.

HAVE NO FEAR! Caspar, I'm not about to go on and on about how we can rely on this to space our children, though it is very effective for that (so effective I was night-weaning Olivia in order to conceive our next dearly longed-for baby due this September).

But, as I mentioned in Part 1, the hormonal break that the uterus enjoys during pregnancy is continued during the nursing relationship as well. It has been studied that breastfeeding will in fact reduce your chances of breast cancer. And if that isn't good enough, it also reduces the risk of other reproductive cancers in woman as well.

I hope that this information has been interesting to learn, and that I might have shed some light on things that aren't generally known. There are even more things about a woman's natural fertility that I have found fascinating since I started studying it three years ago, but at this moment more pressing things are upon me and this post has sat as a draft long enough.

I'm going to go share popsicles with the 18 month old result of my healthy fertility since she has a 102 degree fever, and I don't want her to get dehydrated. :(

Thanks for reading.

Individualism and Society

Here are some wise words by Harold O. J. Brown, of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, & Society.

The whole article can be read here.

Where individualism reigns, society ceases to exist. Nowhere is this more evident in the beginning of this new century than in the transformation of sexual morality in Western "Christendom." One of the most fundamental imperatives for living beings is the perpetuation of the species, of the race. It is contrary to natural law to suggest that the woman, the bearer of the new generation, should be able to dispose of it at will without any restraint by her spouse or by her parents. The traditional covenants, marriage and family, mean nothing to the individualist. The elevation of abortion to a fundamental right through Roe v. Wade and a series of concurring Supreme Court decisions breaks totally with the biblical and natural principles of reproduction as a human duty.

"Be fruitful and multiply" is God's first command to human beings (Genesis 1:28). Homosexual behavior does not reproduce, and abortion negates reproduction that has already taken place. A society that not merely tolerates but extols and praises both - as our society does - has clearly repudiated the reality of nature as well as the teachings of religion. No animal species exchanges reproductive sexual behavior for sterility. Only homo sapiens are clever enough to see this as a "right" to be enjoyed and praised. Throughout the Western world, the rate of human reproduction is not sufficient to preserve the society. The individual has no duty to society, no more than to God. She or he is autonomous, a law unto self. Individualism taken to this extreme is solipsistic. When solipsistic man dies, he dies alone. There is no one to mourn him, for there will be no one to come after him.

When there is no common sense of the good, traditional virtues are mocked or banned, and traditional vices go from disapproval to tolerance to acceptance to dominance. Tradition becomes a disqualification, rather than a reason for approval. Tolerance of the old style is rejected as implying acceptance, not disapproval, as indeed it did. What it means today is approval, acceptance, and preferential treatment. Tolerance comes to mean approving that which in principle was intolerable. And as Jean-Paul Maisonneuve said, it becomes the worst kind of intolerance.[6] The tennis players are ruining the putting greens.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," St. Paul wrote (Romans 1:22, NASB). In the final paragraph of The Crisis of Our Age, Pitirim Sorokin asks that the grace of understanding be vouchsafed to us, so that we may make the necessary decisions to escape the fiery dies irae and be able to continue man's divine creative mission on earth.

What is the Nature of "Natural Fertility?"

I am trying to understand the point Devona is making regarding the natural fertility of a healthy woman. To be honest, I enjoyed my Lenten blogging fast so much that I was tempted not to begin blogging again! ;-) My home blog, beggarsall, is closing in on its 50,000th visitor. That's overwhelming, and scary insofar as it is like a black hole that can suck in a lot of time - something I don't have a lot to spare, with 6 kids and lots of jobs and responsibilities at home, church, and school.

Anyway, Devona writes: "It [a healthy woman's natural fertility] very much relates to the topic of contraception inasmuch as the culture (as we have discussed before) treats fertility as an illness to be treated and controlled by medication. But if one understands the natural unmedicated workings of a healthy woman's cycle, by which I mean more than just her monthly cycle, we can learn a great deal about the great care God took when making us reproductive beings."

The first question I have is this: Is learning about God's creation of man and woman as reproductive beings the true extent of your purpose in expounding upon knowledge gleaned from NFP teachers? Are you sure you do not have any motive tucked in here (intentional or unintentional) of advocating NFP prior to making the case for its being God-pleasing? If not, why the statement: "I could go on and on in order to help explain this, but it is really best if you find a good source for NFP and learn from a trained professional."

I certainly agree that a knowledge of how God designed us as reproductive beings would be helpful. However, there is a huge difference between a general knowledge of human physiology and the charting of one's own personal fertility cycles - the former possibly being helpful in understanding God's creation, the latter being a matter of being able to use such personal knowledge to our own selfish purposes. We are by nature 100% sinful! If we are to fear, love, and trust God alone, are we not tempting ourselves by tracking our personal fertility on a daily basis?

Finally, I'd like to ask: Are you sure that the way our natural fertility works in this fallen world tells us what God's initial perfect plan was in the beginning? Creation was fatally damaged in the fall. Many excellent theologians theorize that pre-fall fertility was intended to be much higher than that which resulted post-fall - possibly not inhibited at all by days of the month or nursing, etc. Pain and tribulation were certainly increased. Is it not possible that studying the relative times of fertility and infertility will tell us more about our fallen world than about God's perfect creative plan?

Once again, I think the problem here is a matter of getting the cart before the horse. What do the cycles of the natural fertility of the so-called "healthy" woman really tell us about? I think they tell us about the perversion of God's creation by sin, death, and the Devil. The image of God is so damaged that we can only see a shadow of it in the current state of nature, as if we are looking in a shattered mirror.

Rather than looking at nature, we should be looking at God's Word in an attempt to discern God's will.

What think you?

Blessings,

Caspar

The natural fertility in a healthy woman. Part 1

I thought I'd post this, since I have found that many women, even those who are in their fertile years, do not know. Most men don't, though that doesn't surprise me as much.

It very much relates to the topic of contraception inasmuch as the culture (as we have discussed before) treats fertility as an illness to be treated and controlled by medication. But if one understands the natural unmedicated workings of a healthy woman's cycle, by which I mean more than just her monthly cycle, we can learn a great deal about the great care God took when making us reproductive beings.

You will find a TON of contradictory information about these matters. But if you consider the affiliation of the source you will find that the majority of pro-life and non-contraceptive organizations will provide you with the same, or at least very similar information. I learned most of this from my Natural Family Planning(NFP) teacher, Dr. Sears, and the La Leche League International.


First off, as has been discussed in the past, a woman is only fertile for a short period of her monthly cycle. It ranges from 5 to 9 days, depending on the exact time of her ovulation and the quality of her cervical fluid (I could go on and on in order to help explain this, but it is really best if you find a good source for NFP and learn from a trained professional). The fertile period is near the middle of her monthly cycle. The cycle begins on the first day of menstruation. Ovulation does not always occur on the same day after her first day of her cycle, but the same number of days always pass between ovulation until the beginning of her next cycle. This is called a luteal phase. Mine is 15 days. I tend to think that this is pretty cool, but that's just me. ;-)

The statistics that I have been given from my NFP teacher were that a couple not avoiding or attempting to conceive, but having natural relations would conceive on average within 6 months if both partners are healthy. And a couple which is able to observe and follow their fertile patterns when trying to conceive, can after as little as one month, but often after 4 if they are both healthy. If there are fertility problems but the woman is still ovulating, a couple who can determine their fertility can conceive within 8 months on average. Of course, that last stat can vary a lot depending on how often a less fertile woman ovulates.

Let's continue now onto the next phase of a woman's fertility: pregnancy. We all know that women carry their children on average 40 weeks, but it is really more like 41 weeks for first time mothers. This varies depending on your race and health conditions, but is pretty static over all.

Pregnancy benefits the woman's over all health by giving her ovaries a rest. The monthly surges of hormones are relieved and replaced by a steady increase of the hormone progesterone, which I like to call "the happy-hormone" because it really makes you feel good, you know that thing they call the "pregnancy glow"? In fact there have been a few studies which link post-partum depression and the length of pregnancy since progesterone levels peak right at the end of pregnancy and then drop to nearly zero after birth. Theoretically, if a woman has not been pregnant for the 40 to 41 weeks her level of progesterone will not reach that peak and will therefore be lower over all and the after birth change will not be as drastic.

The other benefit of pregnancy is the lowered risk of cancers in her fertile system, such as breast and ovarian cancer. Pregnancy gives your body a rest from the back and forth high levels of estrogen, which is a cancer causing hormone in too high of levels. That's pretty cool, too, if you ask me.

Once a woman has given birth we begin the next phase of her fertility. And it's not "trying not to get pregnant too soon." God has made a natural way to space our children, and lucky for us it has sooooooo many other benefits for mom and baby that you'd be silly not to give it a try.

This is, of course, breastfeeding which I will discuss in my next post. I think I've already given everyone enough to chew on for one day. :)

Touchstone: News and Views

First the News: Eric brought to my attention that this blog has been sited by the editor of Touchstone Magazine - David Mills. He comments on 'Lutherans & Contraception' in the Touchstone Blog 'Mere Comments'... It is an encouraging boost in what has been a slow time for this blog.




As for Views: In David Mills' blog post he also sites an essay by Juli Loesch Wiley entitled 'The Well-Connected Mother'. It is a good read and reveals a level of meditation on marriage, motherhood and the Lord that moves beyond the all too often chronic refrain within our own spheres of 'the freedom of the Christian'.

First Things, Hobbits & Children

I was recently filing some old articles I had read in past years when I came across an incredible little piece on The Lord of the Rings that I had forgotten about. It is quite pertinent to our discussion and cuts to the heart of my concern over the Christian Church's near whole-hearted buy-in to the contraceptive age. Here is an excerpt from it:

The virtues of mortality are most obvious in the great paradox of the book: that the very mortal Hobbits are the only ones who can resist the Ring’s seduction and destroy it. Seemingly the most insignificant and lowliest race of all, they spend their (relatively) short lives in small pursuits. They have little use for lofty “elvish” ideas. As most characters in The Lord of the Rings remark, they are unlikely saviors of the world. In fact, their lowly mortality may be their greatest asset.

The Hobbits are firmly enfleshed. They love gardening, visiting, eating and drinking—“six meals a day (when they could get them… Also, unlike the other lands we see, the Shire is full of children, for Tolkien tells us that Hobbits have very large families, Frodo and Bilbo being “as bachelors very exceptional.” This is true of no other people in Middle Earth. The immortal Elves, of course, need few children… The Dwarves, though mortal, are very long-lived, and they have children so seldom that many believe they are not born, but grow from stones… The Ents seem to live more or less forever, but even they are dying out.

It is not only the older and the lesser races that have ceased to bear children. Barrenness also characterizes Gondor. Once great, the city has declined. Pippin sees there many houses that have fallen empty, so that “it lacked half the men that could have dwelt at ease there.” Beregond the guard tells him, “There were always too few children in the city…”

Click here to read the full piece written by Anna Mathie entitled ‘Tolkien and the Gift of Mortality’ (2003 First Things 137 – November 2003)

Lenten Blogging Fast

In preparation for the Resurrection of our Lord, I will be fasting from blogging on both BeggarsAll and LutheransandContraception. If that and my fasting from beer and other carbohydrates (are there other carbohydrates?) doesn't kill me, I'll be back after Easter Sunday.

Lenten blessings to you all,

Caspar

Birth Control to be Outlawed in New Town

Returning to those black and white days of the baby-boom of the 1940s and 50s - the theme of Pleasantville in reverse!

Pleasantville was a comedy about two '90s kids shockingly thrust into the black-and-white TV world of Pleasantville, a Leave It to Beaver-style town complete with picket fences, corner malt shop, and warm chocolate chip cookies, where everyone knew right from wrong. This time-travel occurs when a one-of-a-kind remote control (provided by repairman Don Knotts, who I'm very sorry to report died this past Saturday of lung cancer) transports them from the real world to the obligatory G-rated TV land. They are forced to play along as "Bud" and "Mary Sue," the obedient children of George and Betty Parker. Mary Sue starts shaking the town up, most notably when she takes basketball stud Skip up to Lover's Lane for some modern-day fun and games. Soon enough, Pleasantville's teens are discovering sex along with rock & roll, free thinking, and soul-changing Technicolor. The movie gradually transforms from all black and white to color, building by building and skirt by shirt.

Now, imagine this process in reverse...

Domino's Pizza Founder Plans "Catholic Only" Town
February 27, 2006 2:00 p.m. EST
Julie Farby - All Headline News Staff Writer

Detroit, Michigan (AHN)—A former marine who was raised by nuns and made a fortune selling pizza has embarked on a plan to build the first town in America to be run according to strict Catholic principles, the Times reports. Tom Monaghan, the founder of the Domino’s Pizza chain, has stirred protests from civil rights activists by declaring that Ave Maria’s pharmacies will not be allowed to sell condoms or birth control pills. The town’s cable television network will carry no X-rated channels.

Read more HERE.
________________________________________

I'm concerned about the pietism of this Amish-style retreat from the world. However, there is no indication that these people will never leave the town, like poor Jim Carrey in The Truman Show, or the sheltered children in The Village. This RC town could be a shining example of what life under a government that pays attention to God's law could be without the error of the Amish of avoiding all innovation. I'd love to live in a works-righteous Roman Catholic town! Unfortunately, NFP will probably be legal - though serious Roman Catholics know that it is officially only sanctioned for extreme cases.

I think this would probably be an excellent place to live and raise a family if one could find a confessional Lutheran church nearby. I wonder if we Lutheran "catholics" would be welcome to purchase real estate in this new town. Alas, I believe the ideals of Tom Monaghan are doomed to failure, as legal battles will likely prevent such a town from ever existing. Let's see how long South Dakota's ban on abortion lasts.

A good article from Touchstone

I'm in a poasting links kind of mood today. Here's a really good one.

The question is, where is your treasure? And this question is for fathers as well as for mothers. Is your treasure your job, your career, your earning power, your advancement, your house, your car, your vacation, your computer, your money, and the things that money can buy? Or is your treasure your children? For where your treasure is, there also your heart will be.

Something Applicable from a Pastor I trust...

This would make Caspar happy.