Conservative Anabaptists and Birth Control

[Haystack]

I think both sides have some good points so far. As a young adult I would like to marry and start a family someday, but the traditional Anabaptist dream seems to keep increasing in difficulty as time goes on. I work in agriculture and I earn a fair wage, but I can barely afford to take care of myself, let alone a entire family if I had one. Now this is mostly due to the high cost of living in my area, but the cost of living is rising nation wide. I would like to own a farm someday or a small home business of my own, but house and land prices are through the roof! It can be quite overwhelming and discouraging to think about for someone trying to start out in life.

Lets say hypothetically I married and had 3 kids and we got by just fine, but we defiantly couldn't survive having 1 more child. Would it be morally wrong to not have anymore kids due to financially not being able to afford it? I think I would feel more guilty bringing another child into the world if I knew I couldn't provide for them and the rest of my family.

To add to the discussion, I've read that long term abstinence can also cause some health problems, but to what extent I can't recall at the moment. Is there any logical truth to this?

[ken_sylvania]

I've read that long term abstinence can also cause some health problems, but to what extent I can't recall at the moment. Is there any logical truth to this?

Not sure where that puts us singles then. Doomed to health problems maybe?

Lets say hypothetically I married and had 3 kids and we got by just fine, but we defiantly couldn't survive having 1 more child. Would it be morally wrong to not have anymore kids due to financially not being able to afford it? I think I would feel more guilty bringing another child into the world if I knew I couldn't provide for them and the rest of my family.

Maybe part of this has to do with our definition of "survive." Some feel that if they can't eat out at Olive Garden once a week they are poor. For others it's quite a treat if Dad brings home a box of ice cream once in a while. If you choose to not have other child so that there's money for a hunting trip come fall, I'm afraid your priorities are messed up. Not saying that's your situation, but giving a hypothetical answer to your hypothetical question.

[Haystack]

I've read that long term abstinence can also cause some health problems, but to what extent I can't recall at the moment. Is there any logical truth to this?

Not sure where that puts us singles then. Doomed to health problems maybe?

Lets say hypothetically I married and had 3 kids and we got by just fine, but we defiantly couldn't survive having 1 more child. Would it be morally wrong to not have anymore kids due to financially not being able to afford it? I think I would feel more guilty bringing another child into the world if I knew I couldn't provide for them and the rest of my family.

Maybe part of this has to do with our definition of "survive." Some feel that if they can't eat out at Olive Garden once a week they are poor. For others it's quite a treat if Dad brings home a box of ice cream once in a while. If you choose to not have other child so that there's money for a hunting trip come fall, I'm afraid your priorities are messed up. Not saying that's your situation, but giving a hypothetical answer to your hypothetical question.

When I say survive, I mean having enough to feed the family and keep a roof over their head. No eating out, ice cream, trips, etc. Bare minimum. But I can see where you're coming from, kids before anything else. Which I agree, but where do you draw the line. I know union jobs are frowned upon, but if that means financially earning more money and in return having more kids wouldn't that be a good thing? The days of farming and having a small family home business's are creeping away. Look at all the Amish working factory jobs now because of this.

[Wade]

I think both sides have some good points so far. As a young adult I would like to marry and start a family someday, but the traditional Anabaptist dream seems to keep increasing in difficulty as time goes on. I work in agriculture and I earn a fair wage, but I can barely afford to take care of myself, let alone a entire family if I had one. Now this is mostly due to the high cost of living in my area, but the cost of living is rising nation wide. I would like to own a farm someday or a small home business of my own, but house and land prices are through the roof! It can be quite overwhelming and discouraging to think about for someone trying to start out in life.

Lets say hypothetically I married and had 3 kids and we got by just fine, but we defiantly couldn't survive having 1 more child. Would it be morally wrong to not have anymore kids due to financially not being able to afford it? I think I would feel more guilty bringing another child into the world if I knew I couldn't provide for them and the rest of my family.

To add to the discussion, I've read that long term abstinence can also cause some health problems, but to what extent I can't recall at the moment. Is there any logical truth to this?

Good questions. I have no idea about the health effects?

Morally wrong? I don't think it is a matter of any fundamental answer about financial issues. I would be more inclined to ask what is really needed to live? My intent of this originally coming forth was actually someone else mentioning birth rates and then I through a systematic approach came to a conclusion of selfishness - so that is what I am more looking at more than anything morally right or wrong. I am talking about taking up our cross daily.

I work the same job with a few single men (one just bought his first home at 45, (the other 2 are about my age) one just had to borrow $15,000 from his parents to pay off his credit cards so he could eat, the other pulled out his investments to buy a second car, and a few married men that are older (one has 2 jobs and doesn't understand how we can survive, the other was hoping to be retired by now but can't yet because he can't afford it).
All these men earn about the same as I do and our family has much more than we need with 5 children. That could always change and hard times could come but does God call for us to live in such a way to store up for the future fro the hard times?

A farm sounds nice but I also have a friend who has 10 children and for the first time in his life 2 years ago made enough money to be over the poverty line here in Canada at about 40 years old. Another I haven't seen in a bit was making a low wage with 9 children and still owned a few acre property. I don't think they really go without needs but they certainly go without luxuries. And they still give a lot. Where they can't give money they give something more precious - time and compassion and etc. One thing is for sure: I recognized in these families including their children a humility that is an example to any one part of His kingdom.

I have been able at certain times to give lots of things to my children and provide well but never once when asked what they would prefer in regards to time or money/toys did they ever pick the toys/money...

[Wade]

I've read that long term abstinence can also cause some health problems, but to what extent I can't recall at the moment. Is there any logical truth to this?

Not sure where that puts us singles then. Doomed to health problems maybe?

Lets say hypothetically I married and had 3 kids and we got by just fine, but we defiantly couldn't survive having 1 more child. Would it be morally wrong to not have anymore kids due to financially not being able to afford it? I think I would feel more guilty bringing another child into the world if I knew I couldn't provide for them and the rest of my family.

Maybe part of this has to do with our definition of "survive." Some feel that if they can't eat out at Olive Garden once a week they are poor. For others it's quite a treat if Dad brings home a box of ice cream once in a while. If you choose to not have other child so that there's money for a hunting trip come fall, I'm afraid your priorities are messed up. Not saying that's your situation, but giving a hypothetical answer to your hypothetical question.

When I say survive, I mean having enough to feed the family and keep a roof over their head. No eating out, ice cream, trips, etc. Bare minimum. But I can see where you're coming from, kids before anything else. Which I agree, but where do you draw the line. I know union jobs are frowned upon, but if that means financially earning more money and in return having more kids wouldn't that be a good thing? The days of farming and having a small family home business's are creeping away. Look at all the Amish working factory jobs now because of this.

Union jobs make more money.... Not here! I work a union job but they deduct so much off my pay that I made a fair amount more clear when I made $2.50 less at a non-union job but still had the same benefits minus a pension plan. Those non union jobs now have better benefits and I could make more an hour at them and be much better off and I know they would hire me back right away. But we suffer with less because those other places wouldn't work for us because other reasons that are more important than money.

[Haystack]

Good questions. I have no idea about the health effects?

Morally wrong? I don't think it is a matter of any fundamental answer about financial issues. I would be more inclined to ask what is really needed to live? My intent of this originally coming forth was actually someone else mentioning birth rates and then I through a systematic approach came to a conclusion of selfishness - so that is what I am more looking at more than anything morally right or wrong. I am talking about taking up our cross daily.

I work the same job with a few single men (one just bought his first home at 45, (the other 2 are about my age) one just had to borrow $15,000 from his parents to pay off his credit cards so he could eat, the other pulled out his investments to buy a second car, and a few married men that are older (one has 2 jobs and doesn't understand how we can survive, the other was hoping to be retired by now but can't yet because he can't afford it).
All these men earn about the same as I do and our family has much more than we need with 5 children. That could always change and hard times could come but does God call for us to live in such a way to store up for the future fro the hard times?

A farm sounds nice but I also have a friend who has 10 children and for the first time in his life 2 years ago made enough money to be over the poverty line here in Canada at about 40 years old. Another I haven't seen in a bit was making a low wage with 9 children and still owned a few acre property. I don't think they really go without needs but they certainly go without luxuries. And they still give a lot. Where they can't give money they give something more precious - time and compassion and etc. One thing is for sure: I recognized in these families including their children a humility that is an example to any one part of His kingdom.

I have been able at certain times to give lots of things to my children and provide well but never once when asked what they would prefer in regards to time or money/toys did they ever pick the toys/money...

Very good perspective, Wade. Like I said I'm young and don't have any experience with dealing with this subject. I'm sure I will see things differently when the time comes for me to start a family. I hope I didn't come off as selfish, Ken and Wade, as that is not what I intended.

Union jobs make more money.... Not here! I work a union job but they deduct so much off my pay that I made a fair amount more clear when I made $2.50 less at a non-union job but still had the same benefits minus a pension plan. Those non union jobs now have better benefits and I could make more an hour at them and be much better off and I know they would hire me back right away. But we suffer with less because those other places wouldn't work for us because other reasons that are more important than money.

I believe that it depends on location and what industry as well. I know around here union guys make about double in some industries so it just depends.

[Wade]

Like I said I'm young and don't have any experience with dealing with this subject. I'm sure I will see things differently when the time comes for me to start a family. I hope I didn't come off as selfish, Ken and Wade, as that is not what I intended.

I did not take it that you sounded selfish. Honest questions and ideas are good to share.

And I say this too: I grew up in a surrounding that children were only ever called "accidents," so with my upbringing the reason to ever stop having children was for selfish reasons(with maybe the occasional health risk).
This does not mean everyone that I believe now that stopping having children is doing it for selfish reasons but is something I would check in myself.

[ken_sylvania]

Na, I didn't take your question as suggesting your were selfish either. I think it's good for us to explore questions like that, actually. If I get too prickly in response feel free to call me out on it. I've been called a prophet already (describing my abrupt way of speaking, not referring to the level of wisdom I might or might not have).

I think you're right about the difference between union vs. non-union wage varying depending on area. But having some experience with the unions in NY/CT/MA area I'd say the benefit to their members is highly overrated. The biggest benefits seem to go to the union bosses. Especially now when some unions are finding their promised retirement benefits are too rich for what's been funded in the plan. For instance, one of the large Teamsters unions just announced severe pension cuts across the board, as the plan has been underfunded for years.
In my industry the field crews tend to travel quite a bit to the different jobs. So what happens is you have a non-union guy that gets say $15.00/hour, to pick a number. He drives a short distance from his home to the shop in the morning at 4:00, jumps into a company truck with the rest of the crew, and rides along to the job three hours away. He works on the job for maybe eight hours, then drives or rides three hours back to the shop. If he does this five days a week he's getting 8 hours @ $15 plus another 6 hours @ $22.50, gross pay is $225. The union guy leaves home, drives his car to the job, works 8 hours, then drives his car all the way back home again. He gets $25/hour plus health care and a retirement fund. But then the union takes $2/hour out of his pay, so he gets $23 x 8 = $184 gross, but he has to pay taxes on the full $25/hour, which will cost him probably another $4. He's left with $180 minus whatever taxes he has to pay. That $45 difference per day will go a long way toward buying him a health insurance plan. So yes, maybe the union worker makes out a little bit better, but not nearly as well as some think. Guess this is a bunny trail, though. Just if you like mechanics and/or extreme types of construction and you live in eastern PA or northern IN, give me a call; I might be able to use your services! I'll make sure you don't starve when you have your fifth child.

[steve-in-kville]

In reply to the above threads.... as I mentioned in the past, my wife and I have been blessed with a large family. Yes, things have been rough financially, but we made it work. It hasn't been a bed of roses at all times. This being said:

1) You don't need to live in a $350,000 house. Even if daddy bought it for (which is often the case), its a bad testimony.

2) You don't need a new pick-up truck every three years.

3) Your wife doesn't need a fancy SUV to drive around, either.

4) Same goes for the boats, 4-wheelers and antique farm tractors. They are just toys.

What do you think God wants? Restrict the size of your family so you can afford to live in luxury? Or restrict your luxuries so you can afford your family?

[Josh]

Hutterites were so financially distressed they started living communally.

Instead of us considering living that way, we throw up our hands when we can't have a comfortable middle class lifestyle and are willing to mortgage our futures for it.