For the record, I’m a pro-lifer who has used contraception (successfully) most of her adult life. Jill Stanek doesn’t speak for all of us on this issue. I don’t believe she even speaks for most of us.

My response: and who decides that natural family planning or the billings method is ethical? Based on what? the bible? i ask these questions because it’s a theme I continue to hear pro-life or conservatives talk about. And again if children are a gift and as Jill Stanek says contraception is anti-conception, then why plan and prevent pregnancy through ANY means? I often hear pro-lifers say that there is never a good time or a perfect time to have children so why all of a sudden does planning to have or not have kids matter?

I am criticizing Jill Stanek’s procreative decisions because she thinks that she has the authority to tell women what kind of birth control they can or can’t use and because she is more interested in preaching her religion than she is in actually reducing or banning abortion. She is a religious fanatic. We live in a free society and I will not change or give up my birth control method just because someone says that the bible says it’s immoral. It is a complete lack of respect and intolerance for those of us who are not religious.

You say that “urban bourgueois sophisticates” limit themselves to 1.5 kids. It’s a description I keep reading on this site and again mentioned by you. You can’t even bring yourself to round out the number because having 2 kids or less- for some reason- just won’t cut it for conservatives or the pro-life movement. Just like Jill Stanek did, don’t you think that the “urban bourgueois sophisticates” have reasons to limit the amount of children that they have? I guess conservatives and pro-lifers have GOOD reasons to prevent pregnancy but liberals and atheists don’t. You say that urban bourgueois sophisticates criticize those that have lots of kids, but the pro-life movement criticizes the woman that decides that she doesn’t want more than 1 or 2 kids because she wants to work outside the home. The couple that decides that they can only afford to give 2 kids the best education are seen as baby haters. And the woman that decides she just doesn’t want kids is just considered an evil human being.

I think it rather presumptuous to assume to know the intimate details of another person’s life or the moral decisions that they’ve made based on having three children.

Do you know at what age Jill got married? Do you know whether or not she’s had trouble conceiving, or miscarriages? Do you know whether or not her husband has a healthy sperm count? Or how about whether she breast fed her children for a couple of years? Or whether she “lived in sin” for the first several years of her marriage before seeing the light on this particular matter? If her ethical system allowed for family planning methods based upon timing intercourse around her fertility cycle, that could be used both to space out pregnancies or to get pregnant. And if Jill had reasons to want to limit the number of kids that she had, it sounds presumptuous to assume that she did so for the sake of some crass consumerism, professional ambitions, or other questionable excuse, even if such excuses are commonplace.

While I agree with an attitude towards life that looks upon kids as a blessing and an openness to breaking the 1.5 child mold so common amongst our so called urban bourgois sophisticates, that doesn’t necessarily translate into everyone having seven to ten kids each. I could think of lots of people who don’t believe in contraception who’ll probably only have a couple of kids on account of their age of marriage, physiological reasons, etc….. but at least they’ll look kindly upon other couples who are more blessed in this regard rather than add to the crude comments that such parents regularly get on account of their choice to keep having children.

you are right. I can’t judge if some random person or couple is for or against contraception based on the number of children that they have. But i can judge Jill Stanek because she clearly expresses that she is against contraception. And also because she says that children are a blessing from god. And if children are a blessing then they shouldn’t be seen as something that i or any other woman should prevent from happening. Jill Stanek says “contraception is anti-conception”. So for this person, this person means that you shouldn’t prevent getting pregnant. So, i have to wonder why she didn’t have more kids. It makes me assume that she was preventing getting pregnant somehow. But i guess her “sin” is ok. it’s just not ok when others do it.