He Doesn't Want Children: Episode 93
by Motte Brown on 10/30/2009 at 6:53 PM
 iTunes | Listen Now/RSS |
Toys of Christmas Past -- 0:00
Lisa came up with the Roundtable topic this week while shopping for her nephew's 10th birthday party. Since it's coming on Christmas, she thought it'd be fun to share our favorite memories of toys growing up and how much they've changed over the years. My absolute favorite toy growing up was the G.I. Joe action figure. You know, the big 11-inch ones from the 70's with 21 moving parts, not the little 3-inch lame ones from the 80's. Yeah, I had the footlocker with camouflage, weapons and communication tools like walkie-talkies and field phones. Good times.
Bob the Tomato, Part 2 -- 16:42
Part 1 of our interview with Phil Vischer was a real cliff hanger. In case you missed it, listen here. And then listen to the conclusion this week about what happens when someone with a big vision has big success, then everything falls apart ... and then has another big vision.
My Boyfriend Says He Doesn't Want Children When He Gets Married -- 33:55
This isn't a gender thing. I'm sure there are men out there who've faced this difficult situation. Everything seems to be going well in your dating relationship until you begin having deeper conversations and he or she drops a bomb like this. So what to do? Well, as you could have guessed, Candice Watters and Lisa Anderson have something to say about it.
By the way, loved the Rush of Fools bumper music this week. I think you will too.
1. BDB said the following at 7:43 PM on Oct 30:
Ah, yes, action figures. If they are issued heavy weapons, can they really be called "dolls?"
They should have made Lettuce Patch Commandos...
2. Sarah (RS) said the following at 10:52 PM on Oct 30:
Well, I'll have to wait to listen to the podcast (it's my bedtime in Costa Rica), but the interesting spelling of "episode" caught my eye. ;)
3. Dave said the following at 1:55 AM on Oct 31:
While I can agree that a lack of agreement on the issue of having children can be rather disruptive to a marriage, what was with the one comment that I noted that said something to the effect that a couple is required to have children if they're biologically able to?
4. Julie said the following at 12:11 PM on Oct 31:
Not wanting kids? I think the two people should completely agree. Huge dealbreaker otherwise.
5. JP said the following at 6:35 PM on Oct 31:
Jelly Telly is awesome! I discovered it a few months ago and I got my sister and her family hooked too! When I babysit for my niece we enjoy watching it together. I like Dr. Schniffenhousen, the Christian Scientist, always a hoot.
But I have to admit that the Bentley Brothers are defiantly my family's favorite characters.
Actually it was because of the Bentley Brothers we even found Jelly Telly. Their real names are Rhett and Link, two internet comedians. Their online skits are funny and anyone- kids, teens, adults- can watch them. So I have to give them a shout out, if I hadn't started watching Rhett and Link I would have never found Jelly Telly. Plus they are Christians who don't hide their faith, thus why I really like promoting the duo to; especially since they are supporting their wives and kids through this internet business.
Check out Jelly Telly even if you don't have kids! You may learn something. And "If you want to learn the Kings of Judah read Chronicles Number two-a." But you'll have to watch the Bentley Brothers to find that out.
6. Jo said the following at 1:29 AM on Nov 1:
If you have different views about having children, that's a dealbreaker I'd say. But, I think it's also important to acknowledge the possibility that it won't be possible to have children. When you get married you're taking that risk, so if I was with a guy who was absolutely desperate to have children (biologically) that would be an issue to talk about too.
7. BDB said the following at 11:43 AM on Nov 1:
Isn't refusal to have children grounds for annulment in the Catholic church?
I do see a few different facets. First, there are those who don't want children because they don't want responsibility. In other words, all the criticisms directed at men avoiding responsibilies of marriage probably also apply to wanting to be married but avoid the responsibility of children.
There are those who are deeply pessimistic about the future. I think you're seeing this in the Demographics of Russia, where fertility has dropped to less than 1.5 children per woman. This compares to 2.1 per woman in the USA. I see hope for the future to be directly related to one's trust in God.
And, as Jo mentioned, there are health issues. I've known people who didn't want children because they were afraid of passing on their own health problems. But I've seen two different reactions to that circumstance.
Some people build very narcissic lifestyles, the dual-income-no-kids model. A Wall Street Journal article once noted a common feature of the people bragging about retiring early: they didn't have children. I personally don't find this lifestyle appealing.
Others accept their medical condition and take it as a sign that they ought to adopt children. I know at least one couple who met in college and got married because they both wanted a big family...then discovered that neither one of them was medically able. So, after coming to terms with that (which took several years), they adopted and are very doting parents. I am an enthusiastic supporter of adoption.
8. Adam said the following at 2:09 PM on Nov 1:
I agree that not agreeing on children is a deal breaker. However, I don't agree that the purpose of individual marriages is to bear children. Certainly it is the case that the institution exists as the only morally acceptable way by which children can can be born, but it is a huge logical leap to then say that everyone must have children if they can.
The difference is in that, when you are married, you become partners in serving God. You cannot serve God by having children and not having children at the same time, in the same sense. That is a self-contradiction. Hence, it would be a deal breaker, since the most important thing in life is following God, and serving him where he leads.
God Bless,
Adam
9. Katrece said the following at 2:17 PM on Nov 1:
Dave, I noted that comment as well.
I know God commanded Adam and Eve to, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," Also, children are blessings of the Lord.
But, is it wrong or even a *sin (some of my very conservative protestant friends believe so) to "limit" the number of "blessings" you have? Why must a couple have at least one child? Why not insist on seven, or however many they can have before their child-bearing years cease?
I am friends with several large families and I really respect them. Some of them just want a lot of children- more power to them :) Others believe it's a sin to practice long-term birth control.
I happen to disagree.
Someone who does not want any children leads to a deal-breaker for me because I do want to have children. But I completely respect people who don't want children. That's their choice and I don't see anything wrong with it.
*I'm not in the least suggesting the show hosts on Boundless equated it to sin.
10. Maggie said the following at 3:11 PM on Nov 1:
I would have to agree that a disagreement on whether to have children should be a dealbreaker. It's a terrible idea to go into a marriage hoping your partner will change his/her mind on such a pivotal issue later on.
However, I was wondering about your thoughts on disagreements on how many children to have: I would think that if a man wanted a huge family (like 10 kids), it would be unwise to marry a woman who wanted only one or two. My boyfriend would like to have two children, while I would prefer to have three or four, Lord willing. I haven't thought too much about this, since it is something that may end up being determined by circumstances (e.g., ability to conceive), and may change based on our experiences should we ever get married and start a family. Your thoughts?
11. Maggie said the following at 3:12 PM on Nov 1:
BDB (#7):
Interesting thoughts on Russia. It is definitely a place that needs our prayers. When I was studying in Russia, one of my teachers spoke to our class quite candidly about the challenges facing young couples and particularly young men. She noted that many young men were afraid to settle down with children because so many of their own fathers had been either entirely absent or had alcohol problems, so they had had few good role models.
There is also the issue that salaries are not high enough for most couples to even consider the moms being SAHMs, but women are still expected to do almost all of the housework. (Another of my teachers was appalled at the suggestion that a man would iron his own shirts, since it was "zhenskaya rabota" or "women's work". Apparently opening the window, on the other hand, was a man's job!)
12. Anna said the following at 5:33 PM on Nov 1:
I'm Catholic and believe that using contraception (any physical or chemical barrier that makes sexual union fruitless) is a sin. When I (hopefully!!) marry, I'll use natural family planning (NFP, not the "rhythm method," please look it up because I can't explain it here) to space my children. But my Church teaches that even using natural birth control may be sinful, depending on one's motivations. The default should be to accept children as a blessing and reminder of the power God has given us as co-creators through sex. Couples might use NFP and abstain from sex when wisdom dictates that they not have children right now. For some families that might be after one child, for others after 10, we just can't tell without looking at the situation. Married couples should pray together about this decision. Some couples I know and respect pray together each month, around the peak of the woman's fertility, about whether they have a serious reason to avoid pregnancy right now.
What has really been on my mind lately is how selfish it is of us to try to avoid pregnancy and children. I'm guilty of this myself, when I think about how much sacrifice having children might one day require of me, how inconvenient it would be to my job, personal life, body, etc. But I'm starting to think of having children as service. Yes, I can hope that my children will bring me joy, but it may be that I have a child who is disabled, or rebellious or "difficult" in some other way. And I hope I will find some personal fulfillment in raising such a child. But that shouldn't be my expectation. I don't think God blesses us with children primarily to make us happy/satisfied. Children are primarily a responsibility and an opportunity to love without counting the cost or the reward. Easier said than done, I'm sure.
13. DannieA said the following at 6:35 PM on Nov 1:
two of my relationships ended due to the fact that both guys (I have no idea why this would happen to me TWICE)were adamant that they did not want kids.
I WANT kids and this was a huge deal breaker to me as I know not being on the same page about this would lead to bitterness and anger.
14. khalil said the following at 12:25 AM on Nov 2:
#9,
*I'm not in the least suggesting the show hosts on Boundless equated it to sin.
That is what it sounded like though, there seemed to also be a bit of contempt in her voice when discussing the issue too.
Adoption: good
Having children: good
Mandating all Christians to marry have children: bad and not based in truth
Suggesting Christians work on the value of families and encouraging children: good
Offering pity and shaming those who do not choose to have children: bad
I refrained from saying much more as I really was put off by the arrogance in the discussion, mostly in the tone of voice and choice of words that seemed to quite frankly condemn those who choose not to have children. I know this is *Focus* on the *Family* but this blog and these discussions are also geared towards equipping singles as well. From a personal and experience I can quite effectively serve and help more children as a single man in my current vocation than I would married or raising my own.
In response to the question put forth by the girl, it would most definitely be a deal breaker that if one person is strongly desiring children and the other isn't. That should have been addressed earlier on, but since it hasn't it needs to be addressed fully now, before engagement and before marriage. There is a strong chance that if the relationship continues and the issue is left unresolved (either one sweeps it under the rug, hoping the other changes their point of view) it would likely create future problems and even contempt within the marriage.
15. Courtney said the following at 1:47 AM on Nov 2:
Listening to the podcast I was struck between the difference between NZ/British and US English. It's just a little thing but we all call 'Legos' (plural) just 'Lego'. No 's'. I always thought it was kinda like 'Sheep' vs 'Sheeps' but obviously not. You learn something new everyday :)
16. H.A.P. said the following at 6:52 AM on Nov 2:
Thanks to Candice and Lisa for their answer to this week's Inbox question. In my opinion you were right on target. Since I've been married for two years, I find myself over on the 'Young Marrieds' area of FOTF now...and I'm loving it!...but still listening to the podcasts. The Inbox covers an issue that is very close my heart.
I live in a predominately Catholic country and although I do not hold the same convictions regarding contraception, I deeply respect their view. The modern separation of sex, marriage, and family is clearly un-Biblical.
I'm thankful for a husband who embraced our unplanned pregnancy with grace and thanksgiving (after recovering from the shock! :)
My concern for the writer of this week's question is how would your boyfriend react if he was your husband, and you were due to receive such a 'gift' that wasn't in your plans?
We take our boys with us nearly every week into the teen Sunday school class we teach, and to our teen/young adult activities. You might think they would hate having babies around, but most of them love it! I get satisfaction out of telling a teenage boy who is nervously holding one of my sons that he will make a fabulous father one day. It is a shame young people don't have more opportunities to interact and care for children. It used to be such a natural part of life when families were larger.
17. Loris said the following at 8:50 AM on Nov 2:
I don't believe that having children is optional if one is able. My parents' pastor preaches on this quite often, that God never rescinded the "be fruitful and multiply" command. I'm struggling with this, since I don't like babies or small children. Not at all. My mom assures me that I'll feel differently about my own, since she wasn't a baby person either. However, my husband and I agreed last winter that we were being led to chuck the pills, so we did. No pregnancy so far.
I also believe that one should not have more children than one can support. I have seen huge families where one parent has a well-paying job so the other spouse is free to pursue childcare and a hobby job. Good for them. However, I have also seen a large(ish) family where the husband and wife both work at very low-paying jobs, live in squalor, chose to have more children, and now rely on relatives for their living. Their oldest daughter is pursuing the same path, being pregnant with her third child in three years at age 22. The younger couple is barely feeding their children now, and the wife refuses to prevent future pregnancies in any way. They get regular handouts from their parents, who get regular handouts from the wife's sister. That's not right.
18. DannieA said the following at 11:18 AM on Nov 2:
Khalil,
I agree with you...I wish that the two men I dated wanted kids, but since they didn't I strongly feel that you don't "change" another person when you get married...too many people have an illusion that the other person will change magically after marriage and get royally disappointed.
So while I feel that they were good men that I dated, we were not going to be functional in the long run because of this difference.
I also feel that these two ended relationships have subtly put me in the position to really pursue what I believe God put in my heart many years ago...and I am doing that right now and am 100% happy.
19. LeeLee said the following at 12:59 PM on Nov 2:
One of my best friends actually broke off a relationship because the guy really didn't want kids. It was most definitely a deal-breaker for her.
But I think some people really aren't cut out to be good parents. Another friend of mine in my honest opinion would make a terrible mother, and she herself would be the first to agree with that statement. God gave us all different gifts, and I don't think everyone receives the "mommy gene." But I haven't listened to the podcast yet and am interested to hear the FOTF take on the issue.
20. Kellie said the following at 2:13 PM on Nov 2:
#10: I had a friend who was told by her now-husband when they started the relationship that "If you want more than 2 kids, I'm not the guy for you." They are now expecting their 3rd (planned) child.
21. SHP said the following at 7:05 AM on Nov 3:
Not having kids is a deal breaker for me (it did cut short one relationship when the guy told me he did not want children). It is a topic that I raised very early on with my now-husband, because I wanted to be sure that we were on the same page. I knew I wanted children, and I wanted to try to get pregnant quickly, as I was 35 when we married and had no time to waste. He would have waited a bit more, but he was OK with it. Now we have a 6 month old baby boy, and I hope to be able to give him a brother or sister (or more than one, as the Lord will give).
For the number of children, I don't think this is something that can be decided in advance. Who knows what will happen, anyway? Maybe you want four, and you are only able to have one or two. Or maybe you change your mind in the process... When we started our family, my husband did not want more than 2, and the other day he surprised me by saying that it would be fun to have 4!
22. Kit said the following at 9:33 AM on Nov 3:
Adam,
Well said. Just because two people marry does not mean they *have* to have children. (It should be agreed upon before marriage though! This is a dealbreaker). Say the couple wants to serve as missionaries in a dangerous, closed country. If they opt not to have children, that's okay. IT is not an automatic requirement of being married, although most people decide to do it eventually, even if they didn't want to at first. But it's not a 'sin' not to, in my opinion.
23. Nate said the following at 9:52 AM on Nov 3:
#9 --
While I agree with your points, I listened to the show and really don;t hear any arrogance or condemnation at all. They are speaking of either married people, or specifically serious relationships. If one is called to singleness or has a great ministry while being single, that's great and more power to you. That's a gift to be used for sure.
However, as you said, potential life-partners have to agree here. Biblically speaking, having children when married and able is essentially commanded, and pre-supposed as you go through the bible. As such I would tend to question couples who both decide children are not 'for them'. but, as with most issues, I realize there can be situations & reasons where it is probably better avoid children. However for the most part, I'd say it's a mask for people's ambition to gain material wealth and do what they can to coast / ease through life rather live biblically and allow God to conform then to Christ though joys and, yes, difficulties of marriage & children.
But, I did not hear any arrogance or condemnation at all, particularly of singles (as yourself I assume) who are serving better as a single at this stage of their life.
--NMM
24. Jeremy said the following at 12:03 PM on Nov 3:
Nate (#23):
Often pre-supposed, yes, "essentially commanded", no. Children are treated much the same way marriage is, as a general assumption for most people, but that does not constitute a command. Paul makes it clear that it is better not to marry, even though marriage is generally assumed, even in his own writings (see, for example, 1 Timothy 3). By that same principle, although children are generally assumed, this cannot be equated with a command.
25. Nate said the following at 2:09 PM on Nov 3:
Hi Jeremy:
Understand your point, but Gen. 1:28 9:1 and 9:7 seem fairly clear to me. "Be fruitful and multiply". I understand there sometimes exceptions to rules and occasionally odd situations. I wouldn't necessarily make it the 11th commandment either. But it's a directive from God, (use whatever word you wish), and to say "forget that" is somewhat dangerous ground. People come up with all kind of reasons not to have children, and my read is that most of them are selfish in some form.
I'm not condemning anyone or calling fire and brimstone. But in a day of relativity, we can make so many things seem OK, or even biblical. I'm not in the mood to parse words or debate what is or is not a commandment. If God said "do", that means "do", unless He plans otherwise, (yes, some people can't have children or are called to other service... GENERALLY...)
Respectfully,
--NMM
26. Adam said the following at 2:48 PM on Nov 3:
Nate,
The phrase, "Be Fruitful and Multiply" in Genesis 1:28 is a command given to mankind. It is commanding mankind as a "species" to "Be fruitful and multiply." This has to do with the fact that the Hebrew term 'adam is used here with plural suffixes. When 'adam is referred to with a plural suffix, pronoun, etc, it generally becomes collective in its meaning.
In fact, the standard lexicon of Koehler-Baumgartner takes this meaning, and applies it to Genesis 1:28:
3. Gn 1-5: 1:26-30 coll. mankind (Boehmer ZAW 34:31ff; in Gn 2f,trad. the first man like ha'ish;
Also, the issue of rulership is something that comes up, as it is related to the discussion of the image of God [are we really going to say that an individual couple in the United States rules over the elephants in India?].
Also, this is not the first place in Genesis 1 that this command occurs. It also occurs in verse 22, and it is clearly after the creatures that crawl on the earth are created "according to their kind."
Also, if you look at how these two words are used in contexts throughout the Pentatuch, they are always found in covenantal contexts, 9:1 and 9:7 being two examples of this [and plural verbs are used there too]. Hence, I would say that this command, properly applied, has nothing whatsoever to do with individual couples having children. Rather it is a command to communities of believers to have ministries of people who are having and raising covenant children.
I like to put it this way. Just as every church must have elders and deacons, every church must have couples who are about the task of having and raising covenant children.
God Bless,
Adam
27. Nate said the following at 5:05 PM on Nov 3:
Hi Adam (26):
I appreciate the word study, and do, in essence agree with what you've said.
Based on available information, having listened to the segment in question, I see the initial thought as being "he/she DOES NOT want children", and the ramifications there of. People take offense when that point of view is questioned or challenged, both here and elsewhere.
Now, whether it is a general command, specific command, a 10 command, a narrow command or a sunny-side up with toast & sausage command, it's still, overall, a "Word of God, from God to us as humans". To categorically decide to not acknowledge, adhere, or obey that command to the best of your ability with God's enabling, is not right. Most of the time peoples' motivation for not having kids is driven by some selfish desire, (acquire more of this first, gotta do that first, etc.) and that is not right either. Sometimes there are other circumstances. I know that, God knows that, and there's God's grace for fallen human situations.
But overall, the spirit of the discussion in the segment was that it should be a deal-breaker for potential marriage partners when there is disagreement in this area, as it is not right to prevent or otherwise inhibit procreation for selfish reasons. Forgivable sin? Of course, like any other. But it's still not right, despite all of the varied ways of justification and rationalization people offer. That is the point I am getting at.
Respectfully,
NMM
28. Jeremy said the following at 11:32 PM on Nov 3:
Nate (#27):
I see what you are saying, but Adam is right, it is not quite that simple. Consider this -- in Matthew 2, God commanded Joseph to flee to Egypt. Does the fact that we find there a command from God mean that every believer should flee to Egypt? Of course not; that command was not directed to every individual believer. And the same is true of the Genesis commands, which is what Adam was pointing out.
You are right that there is probably underlying sinful selfishness in some cases, but to say that prevention of procreation is sinful goes far beyond Scripture.
29. Nate said the following at 7:47 AM on Nov 4:
Hi Jeremy (28):
Good post, and I do see what you and Adam are saying. Though tempted, I'm not going to go down the road of symantecs when comparing 'commands', though I tend to think the comparison you suggested is a bit 'apple to orange-ish'.
There will be a debate ad nauseum about the 'sinfulness' or lack thereof where prevention of childbirth for 'whatever reason' is concerned. Again, I don't mean to suggest that any such attempt or desire is categorically sinful, black & white. As you mentioned, I again point back to the underlying sin of selfishness as the motivation, which leads to other sticky situations, like 'no kids'.
God created humans to pro-create, not everyone is called to 'flee to Egypt' or any other of the specific, personal 'commands' referenced, (oops, I said I wouldn't go there, lol). It's part of our makeup and fabric, and ultimately a blessing from God to conform us to Christ, (as most trials tend to be for true Christians), and the basis of family, which is the basis of moral fabric of a nation. Avoidance or denial of all that is to avoid or deny God's potential blessing on you as an individual, the family that would have been, and the nation you live in. Big step to take? Maybe, but multiply that by X in any nation and you see what happens. Is it a black & white SIN as directly described in scripture like the 10 commandments? No, it isn't. But it isn't a great leap, using God-given common sense and thinking to see that it is not the right thing to do.
If we cut all the law and legalism for a minute (no suggestion to you, just in general), look at what's going on in our world & nation. People are absurdly selfish and want to pursue their own ways. Families get in the way of all that obviously, due to the time, effort and sacrifice involved. So, they avoid it and come up with rationalizations that are tossed left & right everywhere. Now, we are reaping what was sown. Imagine if Israel had the same attitude many do now...imagine the generations of godly people and amazing stories throughout the bible that NEVER would have happened.
Ultimately, I'll concede the points that outright avoidance of procreation may not be a black & white sin as prescribed by scripture. But add some overall analysis, God-given thought/common-sense/conscience; plumb beyond our selfishness, and it's not a stretch to see that it just isn't right.
Respectfully,
--NMM
30. a sassy sister said the following at 7:31 PM on Nov 4:
Nate,
you're on to something: the issue is SELFISHNESS---and selfishness is not limited to not having children; the same argument can be made to those who have child after child without any thought about their future but to simply think about "their legacy". What's worse, is when people make a marital decision regarding an issue,experience success and blessing, and then take a one-size fits all approach regarding that issue---including in how they behave towards those who don't handle it the way they do. And while I agree with Adam that God's command to be fruitful and multiply was to mankind, I must add to say that it starts to become problematic when you say that all Christians must marry and have children. What do you say to those couples who struggle with infertility? Are they sinning if they choose to adopt or choose not to have children?
You are right. Families do involve work, sacrifice,and effort, and time---but all relationships, in one way or another, involve those things. Furthermore, it is important to remember that we are to "be family" as believers, united by Christ. Do I believe in that biological families are important? Absolutely. But I also believe that what's important that these things are handled in the light of rightly divided Scripture, consistent with the gospel.
If you're having children, great.....but just because you're enjoying the blessings of marriage and children doesn't make you make that your glory. Your glory is in the Lord. The same goes for those who don't have children. We need to stop trying to live our lives in comparison with others or with a "why isn't everyone like me" mentality. Such attitudes and behavior go against the model Christ gave and make it even more difficult to have genuine community in the body---creating an us versus them mentality.
31. Nate said the following at 9:22 AM on Nov 5:
Hey 'Sassy':
Good post. I agree with you completely. I think your post was more generalized then to me specifically, but I wanted to clarify that I do not agree with the "MUST marry and procreate" position. My previous posts should make that pretty clear. There are considerations involved, and situations, like infertility, that make it impossible to view this overall issue in black / white. If I ever came across that way, I apologize as it was not my intent. My focus primarily is, as you've mentioned, on the selfishness of people having an effect on a wide variety of issues, including this one. Thanks for pointing these things out.
Respectfully,
--NMM
32. DannieA said the following at 10:04 AM on Nov 5:
However, sometimes the point in these discussions is not simply about selfishness but about having biological kids if you're able to.
I know a few families that have chosen NOT to have biological children even though they are perfectly healthy in areas of fertility, but instead sponsored children and have adopted their own children because of their belief...yet sometimes there is a still a stigma on these families because they didn't have biological children in addition to adopting. That is a view that I don't understand, because clearly these couples are not acting selfishly but are still being judged.
I think sassy sister had a point and I agree with her post 100%. Let's work together however our families look like for the glory of God instead of further dividing us.
Respectfully,
DannieA
33. Jo said the following at 2:38 PM on Nov 5:
DannieA, I totally agree. I don't get the 'have your own children before adopting' thing. God calls people to different things.
Which is also a problem with your argument Nate, because while I largely agree with the angle on selfishness, it simply isn't possible to know a couple's reasons for not having children. Maybe they tried and couldn't, maybe they felt convicted in another direction, who knows? God can discern where selfishness is an issue - and certainly it might be something that would crop up in other areas of someone's life - but I definitely wouldn't advise diagnosing selfishness merely by looking at a couple's lack of children. I don't think you were advocating that, but it is a danger.
As I've mentioned a few times before, health stuff may mean that having children will end up being unwise for me. I'm hoping not, because I really want kids. But if my health gets worse and I can't rely on my ability to take care of a child, what I want might have to take a back seat. Selfishness cuts both ways.
Man, that's a depressing thought though. With any luck (and/or God's provision) it won't come to that.
Anyway, my point is, God leads people along different paths. One size doesn't fit all.