Shame and Censure in Family Planning

2025/07/30 by Grace Kao · 1 voice
Medicine · Psychology · #Psychology #Reproductive Health and Technologies #Shame #Social psychology

paper · pdf · doi:10.55476/001c.142753

openalex publication_date 2025/07/30 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/22

Abstract

Unconventional decisions about family planning can be occasions for both shame and censure. This essay explores why married couples who are childfree by choice, struggling with infertility or involuntarily childlessness, or are pursuing assisted reproduction instead of adoption deal with shame and social stigma. It concludes that both shame and censure have no place when such decisions are grounded in progressive Christian commitments that reject the “inseparability thesis” between union and procreation and affirm conscientious decision-making about the different ways a family can be expanded.

Discussions

• In "Shame & Censure in Family Planning," Grace Kao argues that Christians ought not shame those who struggle with infertility, remain vocationally childfree by choice, or conscientiously expand their [bsky, 2 points, 0 comments]

Related

• Christian Family Ethics and Shame: Three Perspectives
• From Abstinence to Assistance: Antinatalism's Unexpected Endorsement of the Principle of Procreative Beneficence
• First, do no harm: Generalized procreative non‐maleficence
• Families, Social Responsibility, and Experiencing Shame
• Family Planning as a Cost-Saving Preventive Health Service