How many children?

According to the headline, "I'm the daddy... to 70 children!"

This is a pretty thorny ethical issue, isn't it?  Cassandra has recently made some compelling arguments about the importance of biological diversity; and we're all, I think, more or less on the same page of the importance of having involvement of both parents in the raising of children.  So:  while Elise finishes formalizing her thoughts, from your position is this better than polygamy, worse, or about the same?  Why?


Dad29 said...

About the same, of course.

In no WAY was the conception of those children "natural."

Once again, the Church's position is vindicated.

Eric said...

Caesarian sections aren't natural either.

Grim said...

They could be, under Aquinas' dual formulation of natural. The first formula is what you're thinking of -- that which nature gives. The second formulation, though, is the perfection of what nature intends. The Greek here is telos -- if reason shows us that there is a telos in nature, actions to achieve it are in accord with natural law.

So, in this case, pregnancy clearly is for the end of reproduction: reproduction is its telos. A Caesarian section thus could be in accord with nature insofar as it allows us to achieve that end in situations where it would otherwise be impossible.

That's a little different from what modern Americans usually mean by the term "natural." We would normally encounter only the first sense. In that case, abortion is more natural than Caesarian sections, since abortion happens frequently and spontaneously in nature. In the second case, though, abortion is directly against nature, because it frustrates the clear telos toward which the natural process is directed.