When a society casts itself adrift of its Christian moorings it heads down a road of self loathing insanity and hence self induced Annihilation.
How ironic that those groups in the world who want to destroy western society believe in having very large families!
Those groups do not need to worry about warring with Western Societies, as western societies are doing a pretty good job in actively destroying themselves.
Now the majority of people in Western nations would say they do not agree with the extreme views in the article below.
But the majority of people would agree with the Humanist ideology of “family planning” which comes from the same polluted well as the ideas in the article below.
Romans 1:26:
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
From Feministing:
But what if there were no families? What if we say no to reproduction?
My understanding of reproduction is that it is the basis of the institutions of marriage and family, and those two provide the moorings to the structure of gender and sexual oppression.
Family is the social institution that ensures unpaid reproductive and domestic labour, and is concerned with initiating a new generation into the gendered (as I analyzed here) and classed social set-up. Not only that, families prevent the flow of money from the rich to the poor: wealth accumulates in a few hands to be squandered on and bequeathed to the next generation, and that makes families as economic units selfishly pursue their own interests and become especially prone to consumerism.
So it makes sense to say that if the world has to change, reproduction has to go. Of course there is an ecological responsibility to reduce the human population, or even end it , and a lot was said about that on the blogosphere recently (here, and here), but an ecological consciousness is not how I came to my decision to remain child-free
Because reproduction is seen as a psychological need, even a biological impulse, that would supposedly override any rational concerns arising out of a sense of responsibility, ecological or otherwise, I would like to propose emotional conditioning to counter such a need or impulse to reproduce. . . . .
Using my own life as a case study, I conclude that I came to a resolve not to reproduce through largely unconscious emotional reactions . I like children, but every time I fantasized of having one, I felt pangs of guilt over how for this ‘impulse’ of mine, someone else would have to put their body on the line. . . . . . .
Thus as I realized how the cultural imperative on starting a family was unfair to women and the poor, I felt an instinctive aversion to it. That is the emotionally conditioned response that could override our responses to needs and instincts that make us want to reproduce. And if we rule out the biological ‘instinct’, which is strictly only to have sex and not to reproduce, my case for saying no to reproduction becomes much stronger. . . . . .
