Women’s ovaries don’t agree with Feminism

Biological Clock

“The biological reality that female fertility peaks in the teens and early 20s can be difficult for many American women to swallow, as they delay childbirth further every year, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. In the District, the average age of initial childbirth was 26.5 years in 2006, up 5.5 years since 1970, the highest jump in the country…

“While we may not be mature enough to conceive at a young age, nor should we, that is still when the body is most adept at conception and carrying a baby,” says Claire Whelan, program director of the American Fertility Association. “Our biological clock has not kept pace with our ability to prolong our life spans.” Stillman agrees, pointing out that research about advanced maternal age and motherhood today is clear: The older you get, the more difficult it is to get pregnant and the higher the chance of miscarriage, pregnancy problems such as gestational diabetes and hypertension, and chromosomal abnormalities such as Down syndrome, among other concerns…

“Society has changed, ” says Stillman, “but the ovaries will take another million years or two to catch up to that.””

These statements were taken from an article in the Washington post by Carolyn Butler entitled “Ovaries have not adjusted to many women’s decision to delay having children”.

You can read the article in its entirety here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022203639.html

While I strongly disagree with many conclusions and opinions in this article, the biological statements of fact are indeed accurate.

We agree there needs to be an adjustment, we just disagree about where the adjustment needs to be made

In the article, one of Carolyn Butler’s contributors stated that “Society has changed” but that basically women’s ovaries need to evolve to our societies’ desires.  This is the height of arrogance toward our God and creator.

What never occurs to modern women, is maybe, just maybe, we need to “adjust” as a society and return to respecting a woman’s most important role in our society, being wives and mothers.

What all societies knew for thousands of years and has now been all but buried in our society is admitted in this article:

“While we may not be mature enough to conceive at a young age, nor should we, that is still when the body is most adept at conception and carrying a baby

Newborn baby

Of course before they admit this extremely important biological fact, they have to put their value judgment in about maturity, but they cannot escape the biological FACT that women bear the most children, and the healthiest children from the teenage years to the early 20s. After the early 20s miscarriages, birth defects and all kinds of other issues come into play, besides the fact that it is simply harder to get pregnant.

The maturity argument

Dennis Prager, a syndicated radio talk show host has addressed this “maturity argument” many times. Dr. Prager states things like “marriage breeds maturity” and “after marriage having children breeds even more maturity” and he is absolutely right.

In addition to the fact that marriage does mature people, and so does having children, he talks about the need for people to get married younger and have children younger as they used to in the pre-modern era.

I would add to what he has said that as parents in the 20th and 21st centuries we have messed up (myself include in some ways). Each generation of parents over the last century has grown softer and softer on our children.

We hear people say things like, “we have to let children be children”, which basically means that our children have little to no real life responsibility until they reach 18, besides keeping up with their schooling in most cases. Even then we extend the childhood years with college, where they can party and have more fun for about 4 years before they graduate at 22 and are forced for the first time in their life to take on the full responsibilities of being an adult.

In pre-modern times, the idea of a child hood experience with absolutely no responsibility was a very short period. By the time children were 6 or 7 they were being taught the realities of life.

Boys hunted with their dads at a very young age, and girls learned to cook and make clothing at a very young age. By the time most children reached the age of 10, they knew what a hard day’s work was, the boys knew about hunting, farming and fighting, and the girls knew about caring for infants (helping their mother, or cousins or aunts) and they had seen many births. These girls were excited about the day when they would have their first period, and they were excited about when they would be able to marry and have children (usually around 13 or 14).

God created woman’s ovaries the way they are, and they are not going to “evolve” or “adjust”

Most Christians believe that God created and designed human beings perfectly. That means a woman’s ovaries, and her reproductive peeks as well as her eventual reproductive decline were perfectly designed by God.

So we ought to reject this idea that women’s ovaries just need to evolve to the life choices of modern women (and as Christians we know they won’t evolve or change). The fact is that as a society, we have made policies, laws and other accommodations that completely go against God’s design, whether it be in marriage, the family, and especially in how we come to women’s reproductive issues.

God designed a woman’s body to be bearing children at a young age. I stated in a previous article that the vast majority of Biblical Scholars believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus probably had him at about age 14. This was the normal age that most women had children in pre modern times. I completely realize that this is appalling to most westerners, to think of a 14 year old girl having a baby.

I have a 12 year old daughter, and I could not imagine her having a child in just 2 years.

But in recent years I have had to really come to the conclusion that not all our western values, or even our American values, match with God’s design.

Before we decided as a society that women were not mature enough to have children till they are in their mid-20s, almost all human civilizations knew when it came to women producing, strong and healthy children that “the earlier, the better” was the best way to go.

A woman’s most important function in society

pregnant belly

Before the rise of modern feminism in the mid 1800’s, virtually all civilizations throughout history knew that a woman’s most important function in society was as a wife and mother. I link wife with mother, because societies also realized that women having children out of wedlock, was not good for society.

God’s design was that women would have children with the confines of marriage so that the mother would have protection and provision for the children she would bare.

Whether you are a Christian or not, the facts are unescapable. If women stopped having children, the human race would die out.

Not only do we need women to have children, we need them to have healthy children, strong children and well-loved and care for children. This goal is best achieved by women marrying and having children at a young age.

This completely conflicts with the values and thoughts of our modern society but this is how God designed the world to be.

But women are still having babies, just later in life

Some have responded that there is nothing to be concerned about. After all, women are stilling having babies, just later in life. But the unpopular truth is that woman who have children later in life tend to have fewer children.

In his book “What to expect when no one’s expecting”, author Jonathan Last states gives some startling facts on the coming fertility crisis. To summarize what he says in the book, a society needs women to be having on average 2.1 children in their lifetime, just to keep the population level from dropping. The way they come up with 2.1 is, you obviously need each woman to have two people, one to replace mom, and one to replace dad.

But the .1 comes from the fact that some woman are incapable of having children, as well as the fact that some children dies before they marry and have children of their own. So basically we need a certain about of women to have 3 children to make up for the women who can’t have any children.

America’s fertility rate has already dropped below the 2.1 replacement level, and we are now at 1.93. The only reason our population continues to experience modest growth is because of immigration. Many European countries are even lower than America’s fertility rate.

Mr. Last says that in 1970, the world fertility rate was 6.0. It now sits at 2.52 and continues to decline as less developed nations use more birth control and become more westernized.

While I think Mr. Last offered some great statistics in this book, he like many conservatives did not have the courage to take on the true source of this problem – modern feminism and woman’s rights.

In fact he offers no real solutions in the book, but only shows the problem, and it is a real problem. It is not a liberal or conservative issue, it is not a Christian or non-Christian issue, it is simply an issue of math. We are not having enough children because women are delaying having children so long.

You can find the book on Amazon at:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Expect-When-Ones-Expecting/dp/1594036411

Who cares if the population declines?

I have seen people online, mostly liberal, that recognize these facts that world fertility rates are indeed falling, and they think it is a good thing. After all – man is menace to the planet then we have the whole “urban sprawl” problem. Thy population bomb myth was debunked years ago. The only reason we feel more crowded is because we have chosen to crowd ourselves in cities. If you go a few miles outside any major city and suburban area, you will see millions of acres of uninhabited land.

As Christians God has commanded us to “be fruitful and multiply”. He did not just command us to replace ourselves (have two kids), he commanded us to “multiply”. That means we should be having at least four children per husband and wife.

The non-religious problem with population decline is that economies are based on populations growing – not shrinking. When populations decrease, it decimates towns, cities, states and countries.

One of the dirty little secrets of why we are having all the debt issues in the United States is because our population is not growing at the rate it once did. If we had the population growth we once did, we would not be having the Social Security Crisis we are now currently facing.

Am I saying a woman’s only value is in her reproductive capability?

I am not saying a woman’s only value is in her reproductive capability. But a woman’s most important function biologically (and Biblically I might add), is the bearing and caring for children – her body is perfectly designed for this task. My heart goes out to women who are barren – to use the Biblical term. My second wife is one of these women.

While my first wife was extremely fertile (we had several children together before we were divorced). My second wife was never able to conceive, but her heart’s desire was to have children, as should be the desire of every woman who knows her creator’s design. Now she is a great step mother to my five children. A woman has value in other areas as well, whether she is artistic, or musically inclined, or intelligent and well read, but her abilities in other areas must always take a back seat to her primary biological function of motherhood.

So what is the answer to this crisis?

Am I saying I need to go out and find a husband for my daughter who is 12 year old as I write this in August of 2014? No. But my reason for this is not because I believe my daughter would be wasting her life if she did as women earlier in history did, and married young.

The reason is simply because of the culture she has been raised in it would be too traumatic for her since she has not been raised her whole life preparing for marriage at a younger age as women of old were prepared.

But let me give a scenario that could happen in the future.  What if a Christian man from my Church or another church in my area approached me to court my daughter when she was say 15 or 16? Let’s say he was in his mid 20’s and he was a successful software developer or mechanical engineer making a good living? What if he had a home prepared and could show how he could support my daughter? If I checked him out and met with his friends and family and his church elders and they confirmed that he was a good Christian man would I consider letting my 15 or 16 year old daughter marry him? Yes I would definitely consider that.

In most states marriage is allowable at the age of 16 with parental consent. New York actually allows marriage at the age of 14 with parental consent, and some other states allow marriage at 15 with parental consent.

This what I believe Christian parents should be doing.

Our Christian sons have a different responsibility, Biblically speaking than our Christian daughters.

The primary responsibility that God has designed men for is – to lead in society, the church and the family. Men are built to work, to provide for their families, and they are built to protect them.

The primary responsibility that God designed women for was to be wives and mothers. Women are meant to come along men as soon as possible and bare and raise as many children as they can.

Ours sons should NOT be marrying before they can provide for a wife and family. This would mean that a man should not marry until he has steady work, and a home(or at least apartment). Some men may not be college material, so these young men should be encouraged to take up a skilled trade.

Other young men who are intelligent, should be strongly encouraged to attend and finish college so that they can provide to the best of their abilities for their future wife and children.

Our daughters on the other hand, do not have the responsibility to look for how they will provide for themselves, this is their future husband’s job. God designed our daughter’s to be wives and mothers first and foremost. They should be encouraged to seek out older men(preferably mid 20s) that are well established and can provide for them and their children. As Christians we should be teaching our daughters to seek out good, Godly men that will lead them, provide for them, and protect them.

So while it is abhorrent to many modern Americans, both conservative and liberal, I would see no problem with the idea of my daughter when she is 15 or 16, meeting and marrying a good Christian man(say 23 or 24) who is successful in his business endeavors and who is committed to his church and his God. There is nothing evil, or immoral about such an arrangement. Before the last half century, this would been honored thing for a young woman to do.

Once they are married – we should repeat God’s admonition to humanity to the young couple – “be fruitful and multiply”

Are you against women being educated or having careers?

A logical conclusion that someone might draw from this post, and this line of thinking is, that if women did indeed marry younger (as they still do in many non-western countries) then they will not be educated or have careers.

I am not against women being educated. But where I disagree with our modern society is, a woman’s education should always come second to her primary responsibility of being a wife and mother. Our society has it backwards Biblically speaking, we have made an idol out of education and made it more important than a woman’s first job of being a wife and mother.

So would I have an issue with a teen mom marrying, but then continuing her education from home as she bares and raises her children – of course not. Her continuing education would help her to teach her children, among other benefits it would offer.

As far as women having careers goes – I have written extensively on this subject and you can ready the related posts below to find out what I believe the Bible teaches on this subject. But as with education, a woman working must always come secondary to her primary role as wife and mother, if we want strong families, and a healthy and growing society.

Related articles:

Should women have careers outside the home?

The biological case for polygyny and the marriage of younger women

Why God made woman

Why God made man

 

 

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Women’s ovaries don’t agree with Feminism

  1. For someone who claims to be an anti-feminist, you seem to think that a woman’s genes are so valuable that they must be replicated in the form of biological rather than adopted children. A woman with this perspective would have to be so narcissistic that it is arguably better off that she not be a parent. I can’t think of a more fertile ground for child abuse/neglect than to force a woman into motherhood against her wishes. My native Romania under Ceausescu had such a policy, which resulted in a massive orphan crisis. Even your Bible says that pure religion is measured in caring for widows and orphans, not by how many children you have.

  2. Tamara,

    Thank you for your comment. One Biblical truth does not cancel out another. The Bible is clear that young women are to marry and bear children, but that does not mean they cannot also adopt. It is not an “either or” proposition as you have made it out to be.

    As far as Romania goes, I agree it is very said how many thousands of orphans filled orphanages there, and while the numbers are lower today, the country has still never full recovered from the effects of Communism, Atheism and corruption that has plagued it for so long. The problem was not with women having five children, the problem was with a corrupt system which brought about a horrible economy that crippled the nation.

    What Romania needs is true Biblical Christianity, a revival of the family unit, it must root out corruption as we had to in America in the early 1900s and it must embrace Capitalism. If it does these things, women could marry husbands as God intends them to and have 5 children and it would be no issue at all.

    Here is a link to Missionaries working with Romania:

    http://www.biblicalministries.org/content.php?pid=48

  3. “After the early 20s miscarriages, birth defects and all kinds of other issues come into play”

    Correct, but women don’t go through menopause at 35, it’s generally around 50. “You see, young lady, God gave you 40 years of menstrual cycles, but he only wants you using the first 25 years. From ages 35 – 50, you menstruate just for the fun of it.”

    Seriously, what did sexually active wives over age 35 do before the tubal ligation existed?

  4. Derek,

    I am not against, nor am I saying God is against women having children much later in wife – many women in the Bible did. However the big difference with women today is THEY ARE DOING IT ON PURPOSE. The biological facts are – women have healthier children and pregnancies at much younger ages than what many women are doing today. So no menstruating later in life is not “just for fun”, and I applaud women who continue to keep having children later in life.

    But if the reason you wait till your 35 as a woman to have your first child is so you can have lots of money and fun for all the previous years, that is a pretty selfish reason in my view, and it was not God’s intention in woman’s design for her to purposefully wait so long. It is one thing if a woman can’t find a husband, or could’nt have children due to other health issues, but to purposefully put it off for so long is not right in my opinion.

  5. You have to toss out everything Jesus and Paul said about the gift of singleness to reach your conclusions. If they weren’t married, there were some women out there who didn’t find husbands. Also, you have invent a category of sinners – in this case, women who don’t marry and bear children – alongside fornicators, liars, murderers and thieves. Yet, the Bible never mentions any sin of non-marriage or says that such people won’t enter the kingdom of Heaven.

  6. Nicoletta,

    On the contrary, I embrace what Jesus and Paul said about the gift of singleness. But if you study it out, they both agree that God gives men as well as women the gift of singleness not for their own selfish desires(to pursue a career and money, or to not have to take care of kids, or to get way from being under the authority of a husband), but it is for full time service to God. So certainly if a woman desires to be a full time missionary, or in some other type of full time Christian service, then being single is a noble and honorable approach to take. It is also different if a woman desires to find a husband, but it takes her many years to find one, if her hearts to desire is to submit to God’s design for her to be a wife and mother but he simply has not brought a man her way, she has done nothing wrong.

    There does not need to be a new category for this- there is one that fits it just fine, the sin of selfishness, or more directly the sin of selfish ambition. This something a lot of modern women fall into.

  7. I think that you should occasionally make it clear that your message, other than preaching the gospel to the lost, is addressed to Christians to guide them to better serve our Lord, Master and Owner.
    Unbelievers and CINOs^ cannot obtain salvation by following Christian morals and ethics, for salvation cannot be earned by man’s works. It is by the completed works of Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, that salvation was earned. He left it as an inheritance to all who would obey the gospel and be His disciples.
    ^ CINO = Christian In Name Only, a false professor of Christ, a dog that returned to its vomit (it remained a dog), a sow which, though washed and scrubbed, soon returned to its miry wallow (it remained a swine).

  8. While I agree that women shouldn’t be having children later in life, I do not believe it is your place to tell people how many children we should have because there is no specific mandate in the bible as to how many children we should have. My husband and I have 3 grown children, so that does that mean that I’m less saved or less of a Christian just because I don’t have the amount of children you expect others to have?

    Also, think about the financial situation, yes God does provide but remember it’s the man’s job to provide for his family and if you can’t take care of the family you should not have more children. 3 kids was enough for us, and I wasn’t going to put my husband in a situation where he couldn’t provide. Also, it takes physical and mental energy, you need to give individual attention as well as attention together with the kids. If you can have 4 or more kids go for it, but have the amount of children you can afford to take care of. I personally think that the world is overpopulated and that it’s better to have a few children and raise them right than to have many only to populate hell.

    Yes, children are a blessing from God, and God did say to be fruitful and multiply, but He said that to Adam and Eve, Noah, and his sons (there was only 3 of them), because there were no other people at that time. The amount of children a couple has is ultimately between them & God. Bless

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s