Christianity bears Twisted Attitudes towards birth

The Bible says that God cursed Eve, the first woman, with the punishment that she would bring forth children in pain. Woman was punished in her for she passed this punishment on to all women by the power of God. What was said to her was said by God to all women. This evidently means that having babies today under anaesthetic to avoid pain is sinful. The Church avoids saying that which shows how little faith it has in its Bible. But it felt free to forbid attempts to avoid pain in the past. Queen Victoria roused the wrath of the Church when she had a child under anaesthetic. The Bible also implies that having a baby by Caesarean Section is immoral. When the Bible is so strict about nature this unnatural method of birth must be sinful.

The Law of Moses says that a woman is made unclean by having a baby and it is dirtier to have a girl than a boy. Such women could not go near the Temple for a time. The Catholic Church up until recently used to practice churching which was a purification ceremony that a woman had to undergo before she would be permitted to attend Mass again after giving birth. In the past if a woman died unchurched she could be denied burial in the Church cemetery (page 25-27, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven).

The Church calls babies born outside of a valid marriage bastards and illegitimate. Canon law used to ban them from the priesthood. The Law of Moses dislikes illegitimate children especially for the God who allegedly wrote it banned them from the priesthood and even their own legitimate children as well from participation in the sacred rites at the heart of their religion. The Christian priesthood is reportedly more sacred than that priesthood therefore it has more reason to only allow children born in marriage into it. If Jesus was born outside of marriage that would mean that he could not be the Son of God for the Law banned children born that way from the priesthood which would mean somebody like that would have no right to claim to be the Messiah which was higher than the priesthood. Nobody could prove that Jesus really was conceived by the Holy Spirit and we only have the word of unreliable men that he was. And the fact that they were not very worried about proving their claim warns us as to their dishonesty. That is enough to forbid us to accept Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus is presented by the Church as legitimate for he was born of Mary and the Holy Spirit even though he was conceived without Mary’s husband. This is extremely insulting to those who are regarded as illegitimate. Illegitimate implies criticism of the mother for conceiving outside of wedlock – if you condemn pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex you have to consider the child illegitimate. But if the mother did not get pregnant then but say a month later when she got married she would be having a different baby not the same one. So this tells the child she had outside of marriage that he or she should not have been born.
 
Many people born out of wedlock say they find this wholly wicked and say that no so-called illegitimate person should lower themselves to support the Church. The Church replies that it only says the child should not have been conceived but should be born is contradictory and just an excuse. The other excuse is that the Church is not condemning the conception but the circumstances is also unbelievable for without the circumstances there would have been no conception and had things been different another child would have been born and not John or Jane. So every time a priest looks at you if you have been conceived outside of marriage he is thinking you should not exist. This is another reason why marriage is so wrong and horrendous for it legitimises this attitude. Marriage implies that sex should be regulated and limited to one man and his wife otherwise just making a legal agreement to share property would be all that is needed. Remember this, if the Church could go back in time and prevent the conception it would. It would destroy your existence by preventing it.

What if a woman gets pregnant and has a baby as a result of rape? Can we say then that the child should not exist? We are saying the woman should not have been raped and it seems if we can say that, that we can say that if she gave consent she should not have got pregnant as a result of consensual sex. It would seem we are saying the baby should not have been born. Rape is an act of violence rather than sex. It is violence that takes that form. We are saying the baby should be born for there is nothing wrong with having a baby as a result of rape or pre-marital sex. It is the force in rape that is wrong not the sex.
 

WORKS CONSULTED

A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Catholic Truth Society, Westminster, 1985
Believing in God, PJ McGrath, Wolfhound Press, Dublin, 1995
Biblical Dictionary and Concordance of the New American Bible, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington DC, 1971
Divorce, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1946
Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, Uta Ranke Heinmann, Penguin, London, 1991
Moral Questions, Bishops Conference, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1971
New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic University of America and the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
Preparing for a Mixed Marriage, Irish Episcopal Conference, Veritas, Dublin, 1984
Rome has Spoken, A Guide to Forgotten Papal Statements and How They Have Changed Through the Centuries, Maureen Fiedler and Linda Rabben (Editors), Crossroad Publishing, New York, 1998
Shattered Vows, Exodus From the Priesthood, David Rice, Blackstaff Press, Belfast, 1990
Sex & Marriage A Catholic Perspective, John M Hamrogue C SS R, Liguori, Illinois, 1987
The Emancipation of a Freethinker, Herbert Ellsworth Cory, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, 1947