Do Able Married Couples Have a Responsibility to Bear Children?

How does the Bible, Church tradition, and natural reason answer this important question?

Marriage is honorable. The marriage bed is pure. Sex is a gift, a gift God intended to be unwrapped within marriage alone. Solomon candidly regales his readers with the intense pleasure of the sexual relationship in his most beautiful Song of Songs, “How beautiful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much better is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your oils than any spice!” (Song of Sol. 4:10).

Sex outside of marriage is a transgression, yet within marriage, sex is an obligation (ὀφειλὴν, 1 Cor. 7:3). Within this obligation, husbands and wives should pursue the physically and emotionally fulfilling sex expressed in Solomon’s poetry. In this sense, a particular responsibility of mutual pleasure accompanies the marital act.

But do the responsibilities associated with the gift of sex end at mutual satisfaction? Of sexual pleasure and how to attain it, there is no shortage of reading material. But is that the ultimate purpose of sex, physical and emotional fulfillment? Some would say so. Sure, everyone would admit that the existence of humanity depends upon this characteristically heterosexual ritual. Still, in our postmodern age, the responsibility of an individual in the sexual relationship is often assumed not to extend further than their partner’s sexual fulfillment. Many Christians, unconsciously influenced by the cultural cloud of postmodern sexual philosophy, agree unwittingly with the secularists in this respect.

While it may be more comfortable for a married couple to refuse the weight of bearing and raising children, and while modern technological advancements make such a deficiency easily achievable, the Bible stands in stark contrast against this mindset.

It is important to note that this thesis uses both the words “able” and “married.” The word “able” does not exclude couples unable to bear children from the responsibility of being open to life. Still, biological inabilities or life-threatening health issues may preclude them from the responsibility of bearing life. Therefore, this paper does not address this group of married couples. The word “married” also excludes unmarried people from this responsibility. God provides a unique position and exemption from childbearing for those who remain single to serve Him without the usual distractions that arise from familial responsibilities.

Also, this paper will not focus on the “correct” number of children or the moral question of birth control, though these are both worthy topics. Instead, it will primarily focus on proving the thesis through Biblical and ecclesiastical means. Thus, prior commitments to Biblical ultimate authority and historic ecclesiastical consensus presuppose the arguments presented here.

Why should Christians be concerned? Suppose God’s purpose for married couples is to bear and raise children. In that case, those couples who persistently refuse to bear and raise children are deliberately refusing the beauty of God’s plan for their relationship. At an individual level, this is concerning. At a societal level, this is devastating. A childless Christianity becomes a dying Christianity.

History of Childlessness in America

Childlessness has been an internment phenomenon long before the sexual revolution. In the 20th century, before the 1960s, childlessness had been on a steady rise and peaked for white women born towards the end of the first decade of the 20th century; this peak was driven primarily by married women, not single women.¹ This peak was likely caused by delayed marriage and childbearing. While many societal conditions could have caused such delays, economic conditions seem to have been the primary culprit. Women born during this period would have spent their most fertile years living through the Great Depression.

This trend began fading as soon as it peaked. By the end of the second decade, a trough in childlessness was reached.² This generation of women blossomed into their most fertile years immediately after the conclusion of World War II. While the baby boom was utterly unexpected at the time, in hindsight, it makes sense for that decade's post-war optimism and economic growth to lead to a sudden rise in the birthrate.³

---

Origen would subscribe (maybe?)…

Ancient Christian answers for our culture’s deepest questions. Subscribe for a new article in your inbox every Monday.

---

While the history of childlessness fluctuates based on societal circumstances and economic variance, the 1960s were particularly revolutionary to sexual norms. These years were permanently transformational to the birth control landscape, especially in their effects on and within marriage. In 1960, the FDA approved Enovid, the first oral contraceptive, as a form of birth control. The “pill” was one of the major factors that prompted the sexual revolution. Dr. Elaine Tyler May, a noted historian of 20th-century America, writes in America and the Pill,

“Unquestionably, the pill had its greatest impact within marriage. The long-term benefits for married women were profound. The ability to plan and space the birth of children allowed them to take advantage of educational and professional opportunities that unexpected pregnancies precluded…. During the 1960s the birthrate declined, the marriage age rose, and sex among singles became more common and accepted.”⁴

The effects of the sexual revolution are felt in American society to this day. While the practice of birth control existed long before the pill, such methods can, at best, be deemed ineffective compared with the new technology. Voluntary childlessness, which once required significant discipline within sexually active relationships, has now become effortlessly achievable. A new era of sexual freedom was birthed when the pill was first approved for use, an era that is not soon to pass.

Primary Objections Against Childbearing

In recent years, the opponents to childbearing have become all too common. The child-free community and DINKs (Dual Income, No Kids) are two groups that have exploded onto the cultural scene as of late. As many as one in four adults identify as child-free.⁵ In another study, 44% of childless adults between 18 and 49 said that they are “not too or not at all likely [to] have children someday.”⁶ According to Dr. Amy Blackstone, a child-free advocate, “Today, one in six women will end her childbearing years without ever giving birth. Half of millennials don’t yet have children and it remains to be seen how many will.”⁷ Proponents have numerous reasons for why they choose not to bear children, but most tend to fall into one of the three following categories.

Convenience

In a recent article on the merits of a child-free lifestyle, Business Insider announced that “there's never been a better time to be a DINK. Child-free couples' median net worth of $399,000 in 2022 was the highest of all types of family structures studied by the survey and almost $150,000 more than couples with kids.”⁸ It certainly pays to stay child-free. It makes economic sense why many couples refuse children based on the allures of financial security and a comfortable lifestyle.

Similarly, many couples remain child-free because they wish to avoid the strain children sometimes bring to marital happiness. There is no doubt that the process of bearing and raising children creates new stresses and strains on the marriage relationship.⁹ Some couples wish to avoid such an inconvenience to their relational bliss and so choose a child-free lifestyle. Still others who have themselves experienced child abuse or neglect fear possible “transmission of dysfunction” to their potential offspring and are therefore uncomfortable with becoming parents.¹⁰

Conscience

Others take a more principled stance. Two reasons often cited for refusing to bear children are the harm children could have on the planet’s climate and the view that overpopulation will lead to societal and environmental decay due to the exhaustion of natural resources. A 2022 Harris Poll stated:

“One in 5 US adults (20%) agree with the statement that people should stop having children because of the harm it causes (i.e. to other people, animals, or the environment). That number climbs to 1 in 4 among young adults (25%) …. Lastly, while more than half of US adults (52%) are concerned about the impact of overpopulation on the planet, 58% of young adults share that concern.”¹¹

Agreeing that people should not have children because of these concerns and actively refusing to have children are two completely different things. The same poll shows climate change influenced the decision not to have children of 28% of those childfree adults surveyed.¹²

Compassion

The last reason some couples choose not to bear children is a modern variant of antinatalism. Antinatalism teaches that sentient existence entails suffering and death. Therefore, it is immoral to bring children—who cannot consent to such suffering—into existence. All of humanity should refrain from childbearing. Some find antinatalism in Ecclesiastes 4:2-3, but such an interpretation is anachronistic and ignores the context of the book as a whole.

Dr. David Benatar, an influential proponent of antinatalism, communicates a modern version of this argument,

“It is curious that while good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of their children is not to bring those children into existence in the first place.”¹³

Perhaps a more colloquial way to express this position would be, “Why would anyone want to bring a child into a world like this?” Many view their refusal to have children as an act of compassion towards the nonexistent.¹⁴ However, it must be noted that this is a logically empty sentiment as the nonexistent lack any attribute of existence and therefore cannot receive any goodwill, passively or actively. The idea of the nonexistent may exist in a lower plane of reality, but the actual nonexistent is non-existing by definition. Regardless, to the antinatalist, it is a travesty to perpetuate suffering onto those who cannot consent to being procreated into existence.

The Telos of Marriage and Sex

But the question must be asked, “What is the purpose of sex?” The answer to this question is of principal importance to this discussion. The purpose of sex will necessarily dictate the responsibilities of those who choose to participate in it. If pleasure is the ultimate reason to have sex, then marriage and childbearing are extraneous. Perhaps these are religious leftovers of societal evolution that are no longer needed in a materialistic culture searching for its Übermensch. After all, scientific advancement—accompanied by a particular philosophical prevarication—has led to the ability to separate procreation from the procreative act.

On the other hand, from a Biblical worldview, marriage is the only relational boundary that both allows and obligates the sexual relationship. Sex is the defining act of marriage. If childbearing is the primary purpose of sex, then a responsibility to bear children necessarily flows for able married couples. Of the necessity for a marriage to procreate, Emil Brunner writes,

“Sexual intercourse and procreation are essentially united in the order of creation. Deliberate sterility within the state of marriage is a fundamental contradiction of the meaning of marriage…. It is an essential part of marriage that it should be fruitful.”¹⁵

A God Who Multiplies

The sexual urge is overwhelming for most humans. The Bible describes the urge as akin to burning or being lit on fire (1 Cor. 7:9). This has led some, like Freud, to teach that humans are primarily sexual creatures. While the Bible does not teach that humans are primarily sexual creatures, it does teach that humans are inherently sexual creatures.

Genesis 1:27 states that God made humans “in His own image.” The passage is careful to specify that both males and females were created in the image of God. Genesis 1:28 defines what it means to be made in the image of God: to be fruitful/multiply and to subdue/have dominion. Both aspects of the imago dei are inherent to our nature. They are also obligations to perform. Humans naturally bear fruit and multiply, and God commands them to do so within His moral boundaries. Humans naturally subdue and have dominion, and God commands them to do so within His moral boundaries.

These ontological attributes reflect the nature and actions of God. God bears fruit and multiplies (Gen. 5:1-3; Luke 3:37; Acts 17:26-30). In His divine providence, God saw it appropriate that eternity would be filled with images of Himself (Rev. 5:9-13). And in His providence, God ordained that humans would not be a passive audience in this plan but active participants. God will bear fruit to fill His kingdom through the believer’s first birth (from procreation) and second birth (salvation).

It is humanity’s God-ordained nature to procreate through sex. Sex naturally results in children. Even for those who may lack the ability to fulfill their procreative nature, this is only another painful result of sin’s entrance into the natural universe and its subversion of man’s original nature. When a heterosexual couple performs coitus, they are committing an act that is inherently procreative regardless of whether the couple is fertile. Generally, each human is responsible for fulfilling their procreative nature within the moral boundaries God has set unless God has specifically caused or allowed for an exception in their case (singleness, physical inability, etc.).

And God's grace fills most humans with an intense urge to bear children and afterward to care for them. Such a deep-seated biological, emotional, and spiritual desire is often only inhibited by exceptional cultural influences to the contrary. When humans fulfill their procreative nature as they ought, they reflect God's nature and actions. Thus, they become more like the God who bears fruit and multiplies. This is the sanctifying aspect of childbearing.

The Biblical View of Children

A wide swath of modern Western society views children as a burden or inconvenience. A study of twenty-four Western nations showed that while many still recognize the positive aspects of children, many also have a significantly more pessimistic outlook.¹⁶ Negative factors that were researched included economic reasons, career goals, and personal freedom.

The Bible thoroughly opposes this pessimistic vision of children. While the Bible recognizes that a child can become a curse to their parents due to either or both a misuse of the child’s free choices (Prov. 17:25) or neglectful parenting (Prov. 29:15), Scripture unequivocally views the bearing and rearing of children as a blessing. Even the original command to bear fruit and multiply (the first command to humans in Scripture) is couched in the phrase, “And God blessed them….” Dr. Robert Chisholm makes this argument evident,

“From the very beginning, God ‘blessed’ man and woman, giving them the capacity and mandate to reproduce (Gen 1:28). In this context the verb ברך has the nuance ‘endue with reproductive power,’ as the mandate to ‘be fruitful and increase in number’ (NIV 1984) indicates.”¹⁷

The Old Testament regularly expresses that fertility would be one of the signs of God’s blessing upon His covenant people (Gen. 12:2-3; 33:5; Exod. 23:25-26). The wisdom literature of Scripture expresses that children are one of the greatest blessings God can bestow upon man (Ps. 113:9; 127:4-5; Prov. 23:24). In the New Testament, God often defines what it means to be a follower of God by comparing the qualities He desires in His followers to those of children (Matt. 18:3-4; Mark 10:14-15; Luke. 22:26; 1 Pet. 2:2). In John 16:21, Christ describes the joy the disciples will have at His return and how they will forget their sorrow of His separation. He compares their happiness to a mother who, forgetting the birthing ordeal, is ecstatic at seeing her new child.

At first glance, one Pauline verse even seems to highlight soteriological benefits attained by bearing and rearing Godly children, though the verse is notoriously difficult to interpret in light of other soteriological passages, “…but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control (1 Tim. 2:14b-15).” Regardless of the exact interpretation of this verse, it is abundantly clear that women gain an exceptional blessing from bearing and raising Godly children.

The conclusion is simple. Based on the overwhelming testimony of Scripture, the Biblical worldview requires all Christians to view children as a blessing, not a burden. Generally, this means if an able married couple chooses to refuse to bear children out of inconvenience, this couple does not have a Biblical worldview on children.

Ecclesiastical Consensus

Until the last century, the Church was mostly united on procreation as the primary purpose of sex. While it would be impossible to exhaust every position in Church history, there are a few prominent figures to consider. The most influential voices of orthodoxy confirm procreation as the primary purpose of sex. As K. T. Magnuson notes, “[This is] the view that has dominated Christian thinking on marriage through much of the history of the Church, that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage.”¹⁸

Augustine

Augustine is considered by many to be the most influential theologian of the Patristic era. Augustine saw a threefold purpose of marriage, all of which are tied to the sexual act, “These are all goods on account of which marriage is a good: offspring, fidelity, sacrament.”¹⁹ His meaning of offspring is clear.

By fidelity, Augustine is referring to the obligation of sex and the sexual authority a spouse has over their partner’s body. This fidelity aids purity by satisfying the “burning” Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 7. Note that Augustine did not see pleasure but fidelity as this purpose of marriage or sex. Pleasure as a purpose of marriage and sex is a distinctly modern creation. Pleasure may help to accomplish the purpose of marriage and sex, but it is not that purpose.

Lastly, Augustine lists sacrament as the third purpose of marriage. Augustine uses sacrament quite liberally in many contexts and does not consider marriage one of the Church’s sacraments. Instead, by sacrament, Augustine refers to the sacred act of physical union that unites a man and woman and reflects the union of Christ and His bride, the Church. In this way, Augustine sees the sexual relationship within marriage as containing a sacerdotal quality.

To Augustine, all three of these goods were essential. However, there is no doubt he viewed the first, offspring, with primacy, almost too rigidly in some ways. For example, Augustine taught that the sexual act should always be performed with the goal of procreation.²⁰ While other Christian writers throughout history would loosen Augustine’s rigidity, they would nevertheless agree with Augustine on the priority of procreation within marriage and as the primary purpose of sex.

Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas is considered by many to be the most influential theologian of the Medieval era. Aquinas upholds that the primary purpose of marriage and sex is the procreation of offspring. This is revealed multiple times in his Summa Theologica. Aquinas, using the cessation of marriage after the resurrection as an example to make a more significant point, writes, “Further, when the end ceases, the means to the end should cease also: thus after the resurrection there will be no marriage, because begetting will cease, which is the purpose of marriage.”²¹

Martin Luther and John Calvin

Martin Luther and John Calvin are considered by many to be the most influential theologians of the Protestant Reformation. Both upheld procreation as the primary purpose of marriage and sex. Luther, in his characteristically bold way, writes,

“And whoever does not fall within one of these three categories [three eunuchs of Matt. 19:12] should not consider anything except the estate of marriage. Otherwise it is simply impossible for you to remain righteous. For the Word of God that created you and said, ‘Be fruitful and multiply,’ abides and rules within you; you can by no means ignore it, or you will be bound to commit heinous sins without end”²²

And on Genesis 1:28, John Calvin writes,

“Now, what I have said concerning marriage must be kept in mind; that God intends the human race to be multiplied by generation indeed, but not, as in brute animals, by promiscuous intercourse. For he has joined the man to his wife, that they might produce a divine, that is, a legitimate seed. Let us then mark whom God here addresses when he commands them to increase, and to whom he limits his benediction. Certainly he does not give the reins to human passions, but, beginning at holy and chaste marriage, he proceeds to speak of the production of offspring.”²³

Answering the Objections

As the purpose of marriage and sex come into view, the answers to the various objections against childbearing fade away. If the primary purpose of marriage and sex is the bearing and raising of children, the primary purpose of an individual marriage and its sexual acts are left unsatisfied if there is no bearing and raising of children. If God ordained that marriage and sex ought to lead to the procreation of children, then those who are married and able and refuse to bear children are not living in the fullness of God’s plan. The three objections were convenience, conscience, and compassion.

Convenience

While the Bible expresses that children are one of the greatest gifts God gives to humanity, it never says that they are blessings because of their easiness to bear and raise. All virtuous parents would admit that children are difficult to bear and raise. And yet, with one unanimous voice, the Biblical authors emphasize children as exceptional gifts from God.

This is because Scripture teaches against the idea that humanity’s ultimate goal should be physical comfort and convenience (Matt. 16:24-26). The fact that God is less concerned with our convenience is visible in how He hallows pain and suffering as a means of His sanctifying design (2 Cor. 12:9; 1 Pet. 1:6-7). God is far more concerned that His followers be consecrated than comfortable.

In Genesis 1:28, God commands humanity not only to bear fruit and multiply. He also commands them to subdue the earth and have dominion over it. In this way, humanity is supposed to be God’s representative of sovereignty throughout the world. These two commands, to multiply and subdue, are inherently tied to one another. Humanity will only subdue the earth and have dominion over it, ordering it out of chaos into the image of Eden, through bearing fruit and multiplying.

Such dominion must be a holy dominion defined by Godly worship, generosity, and wisdom. The Israelites were promised a similar dominion over the land of Canaan in Deuteronomy 6:1-4. Such a dominion would only continue if they bore children and raised them to fear and love the Lord. One of the primary ways God propagates His sovereignty throughout the world is through the bearing and raising of Godly children.

Christian parents should raise distinctly Christian children. While some children fall away, particularly in America, Christian children normally grow into Christian adults. By bearing and raising Godly children, able married couples are fulfilling the creation mandate to have dominion over the earth by filling it with representatives of God’s sovereignty. According to Pew Research,

“[By 2060] the number of Muslims – the major religious group with the youngest population and the highest fertility – is projected to increase by 70%. The number of Christians is projected to rise by 34%, slightly faster than the global population overall yet far more slowly than Muslims.”²⁴

There are two primary reasons why Islam will converge with Christianity as the most populous religion by 2060 if the rates of growth hold steady. Firstly, Muslims have significantly more children than Christians. Secondly, Muslims are training their children to be distinctly Muslim. Christians, specifically in America, are not as concerned with raising distinctly Christian children. So, Christians coming of age in America have an exceptionally high rate of religious switching compared to other religious groups.²⁵ One of the reasons why Christianity is losing international dominion is because more and more able Christian couples choose a life of convenience and neglect their responsibility of bearing and raising Godly children.

Conscience

The objection towards convenience arises primarily from a natural desire for comfort. Alternatively, the other two objections to childbearing—conscience and compassion—arise from unbiblical worldviews. The issue is not that atheists embrace these arguments. Let the atheist embrace these arguments; heal his atheism, and these arguments will wane over time. The real issue is that Christians sometimes thoughtlessly adopt these arguments and contradict a Biblical worldview.

There are differences between Godly believers on the measure of Christian responsibility in mitigating environmental issues. These arguments can become heated, and extreme passion can be expressed on both sides. However, those Christians who may have a weaker conscience on this issue must be careful to stay balanced. Whether Christians should become more involved in environmental stewardship, believing advocates must never forget that God has promised His provision for humanity through creation. He is the Ruler of the universe. It is by His hand that all things are held together. He is the ultimate Provider. The believer’s faith ultimately rests in God, not environmental resources. Faith always leads to obedience. If the able married couple has faith in God for His ultimate provision and care for His creation, this will urge them towards fulfilling the purposes for which their marriage was sealed, the primary of which is bearing and raising children, even while they pursue a more virtuous stewardship over creation.

Compassion

The argument from compassion, or Antinatalism, is the most interesting of the objections against childbearing. The Antinatalist argument appears whenever someone says, “I would not feel comfortable bringing kids into such an unjust world” or “It is irresponsible to bring a child into a broken society.” This argument has the same epicurean premise as the objection from convenience, that pleasure is the highest good while suffering is the worst form of evil. Unlike the argument from convenience, Antinatalism takes this premise to its ultimate logical conclusion.

If pleasure is the highest good and suffering is the worst form of evil, then it naturally flows that childbearing is likely immoral. Life is arguably far more painful than it is pleasurable and terminates in the ultimate form of suffering, namely death. As Moses writes, “For all our days pass away under your wrath; we bring our years to an end like a sigh. The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away (Ps. 90:9-10).”

However, there are two immediate issues with the Antinatalist argument. Firstly, as already mentioned, God’s value system does not consider pleasure or comfort as the primary moral virtue. That is not to say that God never values pleasure or comfort but that these attributes are secondary to the virtues of holiness. God knows that every baby conceived will face suffering in this life, and He still desires able married couples to bear fruit and multiply. This is proven in the account of Noah. God destroyed the antediluvian population because of their sin and saved Noah for his righteousness. He then reiterates the creation mandate even in a world destined for suffering, “And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (Gen. 9:1).’”

Secondly, there is no logical reason for the natural materialist to prefer pleasure over any other good or even supposed evil, such as suffering. Such moral value judgments are essentially empty in the natural materialist worldview. It is illogical to teach others to go against their “evolved” instinctual urge to bear children just because the world is broken (another moral value judgment).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the responsibility of able married couples to procreate has not changed regardless of objections based on comfort, convenience, or compassion. Technological advancements may make the goal of avoiding parenthood a certainty for the couple undesirous of bearing children. Nevertheless, the Biblical worldview emphasizes that the marital union has childbearing as its central purpose.

The Biblical worldview calls able married couples to deny their personal objections and embrace God’s ultimate purpose for marriage. This is not always a comfortable or convenient task. But by obeying the creation mandate, God transforms those in marriage into images of Himself, the God who multiplies, as they participate in the sacred act of co-creation with God. In this way, the married couple spreads the representative sovereignty of God throughout the earth. Sex is the defining act of marriage and has the bearing and rearing of children as its primary purpose. Therefore, able married couples must not be content to exist in union with one another alone for the duration of their relationship but actively participate in the sacred act of creation by bearing and rearing new life.

1. S. Philip Morgan, “Late Nineteenth-And Early Twentieth-Century Childlessness,” American Journal of Sociology 97, no. 3 (1991): 781-784, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781784.

2. Morgan, “Late Nineteenth-And Early Twentieth-Century Childlessness,” 781-784.

3. Jan Van Bavel and David S. Reher, “The Baby Boom and Its Causes: What We Know and What We Need to Know,” Population and Development Review 39, no. 2 (2013): 268-271, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41857595.

4. Elaine Tyler May, America and the Pill: A History of Promise, Peril, and Liberation (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2010), 79-80.

5. Jennifer Watling Neal and Zachary P. Neal, “Prevalence and Characteristics of Childfree Adults in Michigan (USA),” PLOS ONE 16, no. 6 (June 16, 2021), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252528.

6. Anna Brown, “Growing Share of Childless Adults in U.S. Don’t Expect to Ever Have Children,” Pew Research Center, November 19, 2021, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/19/growing-share-of-childless-adults-in-u-s-dont-expect-to-ever-have-children/.

7. Amy Blackstone, Childfree by Choice: The Movement Redefining Family and Creating a New Age of Independence (New York, NY: Dutton, 2019), xviii.

8. Juliana Kaplan, “The Golden Age of Dinks,” Business Insider, February 7, 2024, https://www.businessinsider.com/parents-dinks-winning-childfree-economy-finances-income-vacation-retirement-kids-2024-2.

9. Jean M. Twenge, W. Keith Campbell, and Craig A. Foster, “Parenthood and Marital Satisfaction: A Meta‐analytic Review,” Journal of Marriage and Family 65, no. 3 (August 2003): 574–83, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00574.x.

10. Elise J. Matthews and Michel Desjardins, “The Meaning of Risk in Reproductive Decisions after Childhood Abuse and Neglect,” Journal of Family Violence 35, no. 8 (May 10, 2019): 793–802, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00062-2.

11. AJ Skiera, “Personal Independence Behind Declining Birth Rates,” The Harris Poll, October 13, 2022, https://theharrispoll.com/briefs/birth-rates/.

12. Skiera, “Personal Independence Behind Declining Birth Rates.”

13. David Benetar, Better Never to Have Been (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006), 6.

14. Sam Wolfe, “On Antinatalism and Depression,” Epoché Magazine, April 2020, https://epochemagazine.org/30/on-antinatalism-and-depression/.

15. Emil Brummer, The Divine Imperative, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1937), 367-368.

16. Haya Stier and Amit Kaplan, “Are Children a Joy or a Burden? Individual- and Macro-Level Characteristics and the Perception of Children,” European Journal of Population 36, no. 2 (July 16, 2019): 387–413, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-019-09535-y.

17. Robert B. Chisholm Jr, “Rizpah’s Torment: When God Punishes the Children for the Sin of the Father,” Bibliotheca Sacra 175, no. 697, Bibliotheca Sacra (2018): 51.

18. K. T. Magnuson, “Marriage, Procreation and Infertility: Reflections on Genesis,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology Volume 4 4, no. 1 (2000): 31.

19. Augustine of Hippo, “The Good of Marriage,” in Treatises on Marriage and Other Subjects, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. Charles T. Wilcox, vol. 27, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1955), 48.

20. Augustine, “The Good of Marriage,” 4–6.

21. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, vol. 9 (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.), 569.

22. Marjorie Elizabeth Plummer, “On the Estate of Marriage,” in Christian Life in the World, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand, Kirsi I. Stjerna, and Timothy J. Wengert, vol. 5, The Annotated Luther (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1522), 42–43.

23. John Calvin and John King, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 98.

24. “The Changing Global Religious Landscape,” Pew Research Center, April 5, 2017, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/.

25. “The Changing Global Religious Landscape.”