Artificial Birth Control

[Fish and Bread]

Okay, for those who are against the use of birth control, or really anyone who can even emphasize with the idea of being against it (Even if you aren't), I'd like to hear an explanation for something:

I can sort of "get" the concept behind why artificial birth control would be generally discouraged, though I don't personally agree. What I really don't understand is the moral justification for being against it in *all* cases. What about couples who truly can't afford children (Or more children)? I understand that many couples who think they can't afford children really can, but there are truly some families with only one working parent (Where in some cases the other parent can not work due to health problems or some other scenario) in minimum wages jobs and such where a child or more children could put them out on the street.

Now, I understand the inclination of some might be to say to those people "Well, just don't get married or, if you're married, don't have sex". However, in addition to being a kind of cruel thing to tell people, that runs contrary to where St. Paul explicitly told people in the scriptures to seek marriage if being single led them into sin and not to deny their spouse if they were married.

So, how can one reconcile the reality of the people's situations as described above with a moral view which prohibits *all* birth control in *all* cases? Is there any way to do so?

John

[Naomi4Christ]

I think it stems from a misbelief that humanity came only from the man and that not one drop of it should be wasted.

It also seems to permit (or tempt) promiscuous behaviour.

[marciebaby]

Yippee for birth control!!

[marciebaby]

For me it's not a problem of money, although that is a very legitimate concern for many families, but the fact that being pregnant is a one-year committment of feeling like crap.
First there's the nausea and vomiting, then the heartburn and the swelling, then after the baby's born the body takes weeks and weeks to recover and then add in the lack of sleep from physical discomfort and from a newborn (this is my experience, mind you, some women have it pretty easy). Then there's the neglect that the husband and children suffer because the mommy is in bed all the time and unavailable to play outside or make dinner.

I love babies and children and would like to have a house full of them. However, I am 11 weeks pregnant right now, and I can't imagine wanting to put myself through this again. Am working on hubby to consider adoption in a few years...

[Fish and Bread]

Anyone have any thoughts on the conundrum mentioned in the initial post? I'm really interested in hearing what folks think, because it's not something I've ever seen addressed by those are against all forms of artificial birth control under all circumstances.

John

[marciebaby]

The theory is that if God wants to bless you with children, who are you to interfere with that? By withholding your fertility, you are telling God essentially that you don't trust him to know what's best in your life.

From Wikipedia:
St. Thomas Aquinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas) claimed that it was wrong to perform a positive act that deliberately frustrates the primary purpose of a human organ. According to his theory, if the sexual organs have reproduction as their primary purpose, then it follows that contraception is wrong. Opponents of this argument claim that frustration of the primary purpose of an organ is not necessarily wrong (see blindfold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindfold) or earplug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earplug) or handcuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handcuff)) and that the sexual organs have interpersonal union as a co-primary purpose.
As a defense of the teaching of Humanae Vitae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae), Catholic thinkers John Finnis and Germain Grisez gave a new argument. They considered what it is that is wrong about killing people, and concluded that what is wrong about murder is that one is acting directly and positively against the value of human life. Since birth control when it is done by a positive act such as swallowing a pill or putting on a condom (but not when it is "done" in a negative way, i.e., through abstinence), is directly aimed at preventing the formation of life, it is an act directly and positively against the value of human life, and hence wrong. The Finnis and Grisez argument appears to have the consequence that use of non-abortifacient contraception in cases of danger of rape is also wrong when done to prevent conception. However the Catholic Church has no official teaching on the morality of using non-abortifacient contraception (limited to use of condoms or other barrier methods or spermicides) by those being raped. Because the Church teaches that a human life is to be respected from the very moment of conception, any form of contraception known to have the possible effect of destroying a human zygote, embryo or fetus (the pill, IUD, Norplant, or morning after pill, etc.) is considered immoral.

Finally, a number of thinkers of the "personalist school", most notably Karol Cardinal Wojtyła, who was to become Pope John Paul II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II), argued that contraception is contrary to the interpersonal union that sexual intercourse should cement. The most popular form of this argument asserts that sexual union should involve total mutual bodily self-giving if it is not to be a form of self-deceit. Contraception holds back something significant, namely fertility, and hence is argued to be objectively anti-unitive, even if the couple subjectively feels united (that something is held back is clearest in the case of barrier methods, but it is argued that other methods still involve holding something back from giving). But to act anti-unitively is, it is argued, to act against marital love, and this is wrong.

[marciebaby]

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that if you're RC, then there really is no way to reconcile the problem. I know people who have been refused communion for admitting birth control use. Although I also know of several priests who turn a blind eye to this.

If that were the ONLY obstacle in my way to becoming Roman Catholic, I still wouldn't be able to convert because there really is no way to reconcile the problem. Some people should NOT have more children. And abstinence is an tremendous burden to place on those who are financially or healthfully disadvantaged enough to need to control their family size. It's just like kicking someone while they're down.

[Filia Mariae]

However the Catholic Church has no official teaching on the morality of using non-abortifacient contraception (limited to use of condoms or other barrier methods or spermicides) by those being raped.

This is not accurate.

[marciebaby]

This is not accurate.

I was just cutting and pasting. Feel free to correct any inaccuracies.

Although have you ever heard of a rapist using a condom? And if he did, would a woman protest him using a condom?

[Aymn27]

Anyone have any thoughts on the conundrum mentioned in the initial post? I'm really interested in hearing what folks think, because it's not something I've ever seen addressed by those are against all forms of artificial birth control under all circumstances.

John
First off, if you're referring the RCC - then they promote NFP instead of using ABC. The idea is that if there are serious reasons for you not having another child, then you can "space" them until you are in a situation where another child would be "practical". Any type of ABC, according to RCC teaching, goes against natural law and is therefore against the will of God.

The "problem" I see, is that basically, NFP is just a natural form of birth control..and, by adherants (not to mention that my wife and I have been using it for 10 yrs effectively) testimony - if done correctly, it is more reliable than any other from of BC. Which, to me, brings up the question of intent. I know and am friends with several couples who also use NFP but only have one or two children, yet they use this method to avoid "serious and grave sin" according to RCC teaching. However, given the amount of time they have been married, and their reasons for not having more children (waiting to buy a house, etc) - I can scarcely discern who's will is more or less faithful to God, my friends who use NFP or ABC. Are (NFPers) they more faithful and less sinful because they are using NFP, but having the same amount of children as those who are using ABC?? I think the sin comes from the intent - not the method. For example, my wife and I had our third child three months ago. We live on a modest income, and quite frankly, having a fourth child would be a great burden on us financially. We use NFP and have been married for ten years. Are we "better off" in terms of faithfulness to God's law than, say, a couple who has been married eight years, uses ABC between pregnancies, but has the same amount (or more) of children than we have? Am I under a greater obligation to use NFP or to provide a somewhat decent life for my children..afterall, I will have to pay for three to go to college, etc.. that also is my duty as a parent.

I guess my point is that the use has to be for the right reasons - either method. Selfishness exists on both sides, and unfortunately, many who use NFP think they are "holier than thou" b/c they are able to follow the RCCs guidelines on that. I don't think Christ puts an unnecessary burden on anyone - and it is not the method that makes one "unclean", but rather the intent behind it.

[Fish and Bread]

The "problem" I see, is that basically, NFP is just a natural form of birth control..and, by adherants (not to mention that my wife and I have been using it for 10 yrs effectively) testimony - if done correctly, it is more reliable than any other from of BC.

Thank you for sharing your experience. Have you found in talking to others who use the NFP method of birth control that it is usually as effective as it's been in the case of you and your wife? The reason I ask is because I have heard from many of the Roman Catholics who are upset with the ban on artificial birth control that it is not normatively as effective as the pill and other artificial methods, which boast a 99% success rate. I think I read a story of a couple that claimed to be using NFP and had several unexpected children (I suppose they could have just been a statistical fluke, though).

John

[trooper]

THis is actually my big issue. When I first read of the RC position in high school, it made complete sense to me. I assume that I was reading JPII's explanation (cause he was Pope then). So, when I met my soon-to-be husband, that was the position that I told him he was "marrying into". Thankfully, non-Catholic that he is, he accepted my role as the determiner of such things.

I think that the Church has really downplayed or not understood the negative implications of BC. First, I think that BC degrades every relationship (esp before marriage) in that in denies the entire purpose of sex - procreation, or at least the possibility. SO, instead of thinking... if we do this, we may have a child, it becomes if we do this... so what. For the man, this is a perfect copout. I will satisfy my hormonal urge without any of the natural ramifications. For the woman, who, by the way, may STILL have to deal with a pregnancy (uh-ohs happen), it leaves no safety of responsibilty on the man's part (I used a condom, sorry). I would tract the advent of regular BC availability to about every social ill we have today - fatherless children, divorce rates rising, child abuse, etc etc etc. At its core, BC teaches that children are a burden to be avoided, not a blessing to be cherished. And I think that that attitude prevails today. Someone once told me when I was nursing my baby in a lady's restroom that she would never breastfeed because it sent the message to the baby that "it" was all about the baby and not about the mom ('s needs).

That being said, I have been married almost 18 years and have only 2 kids. Natural Family Planning works! More than that, though, the Holy Father has said that a married couple who loves children but may decide that having a bunch of them is not safe (financially or whatever) should consult their spiritual advisor and then feel ok with whatever decision the couple and the priest come to regards their opeess to God's gift.

If you're looking for a spokeperson opposed to birth control (right here in the Anglican Communion), it's me. I don't speak lightly when I say that it is evil and the Devil himself is pleased with our approval.

[Fish and Bread]

First, I think that BC degrades every relationship (esp before marriage) in that in denies the entire purpose of sex - procreation

You're assuming procreation is the sole purpose of sex, yet there are also unitative and pleasurable aspects. Given that, naturally, I think something like only one out of every ten sexual acts, if even that frequently, result in pregnancy, it seems to me that God may well have procreation down in the third part on his "purposes of sex" chart. :) Even if it is in the first part, I think folks error in assuming that means that all sex must be open to procreation. The natural purpose of running is to escape from big carnivorous animals, but that doesn't mean that running for exercise is bad. :)

For the man, this is a perfect copout. I will satisfy my hormonal urge without any of the natural ramifications.

One could also say an umbrella is the perfect copout from dealing with the natural consequences of going outside in the rain -- "I will satisfy my urge to go to the deli down the street without dealing with the natural consequences of getting soaked with rain.". :) Along the same lines, should be abstrain from artificial sweetners, because in not consuming actual sugar we're avoiding the natural consequences of eating sweet things? That argument has never made much sense to me. Is there more to it that I'm missing?

All that said, given the alternative of natural family planning, I think I could accept artificial birth control normatively being discouraged if I believed that the Pope were everything his church claims he is. After all, if the Vicar of Christ says something is bad, it would make sense to go with his conclusion unless you have a grave moral objection. I think the thing that would make me wonder if the Pope was really the Vicar of Christ about this whole thing, if I believed he was in the first place, would be what I mentioned in the initial post -- the folks who simply can not have children or have more children without risking homelessness and starvation. Why would God deny them sex within marriage and ask them to pass up a means for them to engage in it without risking death? The same goes for folks with sexually transmitted diseases who can only have sex with a condom without risking transmitting the disease to their spouse. I don't think that element of the teaching jibes with basic morality or with the express view expressed in scripture.

So it's the absolute nature of the position against artificial birth control that is the real stumbling block to me. If it was just "95% of foilks should use natural family planning instead or have a lot of children to celebrate the blessings of new life." and I believed that the Pope was speaking for God on that, I could probably accept it. Saying that essentially people either shouldn't marry or shouldn't have sex within marriage if children would bankrupt them and put their lives at risk is taking it one step too far, though, in my opinion. That's what I really have a problem accepting.

John

[Simon_Templar]

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on the topic... but I think that money is a cop out issue and results from a lack of trust in God's provision. My parents raised 8 kids on one teachers salary.

"I have yet to see the righteous go hungry or his children begging bread"

[Fish and Bread]

"I have yet to see the righteous go hungry or his children begging bread"

Job was mostly righteous and yet seemed to encounter a lot of problems in life. I can't remember if he ever went without food in particular, but it would seem like something that might have happened, given all the other awful things that befell him. Christ tells us in the scriptures that our health and financial station in life isn't always an indication of our righteousness or lackthereof relative to everyone else. He was asked about that fairly directly, because some of the religious authorities of his day believed that blindess was a curse from God and that blind folks were always particularly sinful, even those who were born blind.

John

[Fish and Bread]

Following up a little bit, from reading through the Old Testament with the "Bible in 90 Days" group, it does seem like children and family were valued much more highly in biblical times than they are today. I understand why reducing the use of artificial birth control might help restore a little bit of the old way of thinking on that front, or at least indicate that the old way of thinking had in fact been resored. But I think the "one size fits all" idea of banning it is worrisome specifically because of the people who really and truly would be unable to feed themselves or their children if they had them, or if they had additional children.... That somehow just doesn't seem quite ethicaly justifiable to me, though maybe I'm looking at this issue in the wrong way.

John

[Fish and Bread]

"I have yet to see the righteous go hungry or his children begging bread"

Well, since there was only one righteous man to ever live, Jesus, that doesn't surprise me. :) I missed the obvious with my first reply to this. :blush: But I know what you were getting at! :) I just think it's always worth the reminder - we're all sinful and in need of God's grace. :)

John

[CSMR]

What about couples who truly can't afford children (Or more children)? I understand that many couples who think they can't afford children really can, but there are truly some families with only one working parent (Where in some cases the other parent can not work due to health problems or some other scenario) in minimum wages jobs and such where a child or more children could put them out on the street.
I am not a partisan of either side, but perhaps even in such cases this argument is a materialistic one.

[karen freeinchristman]

it does seem like children and family were valued much more highly in biblical times than they are today.
Valuing our children could be one reason why having fewer of them can lead to better quality parenting and provision for the ones we do have.

The world is a different place now than it was in OT times. God wanted us to populate the earth. The world is now overcrowded. Does anyone else feel that these facts come into the equation at all besides me?

[erin74]

I'm not convinced having smaller families is better for kids. The kids I know from large christian families bear testimony against this. So many of them go on to have large families themselves. Obviously there are plenty of bad examples that could be given - of kids that were neglected, but this is true of small families too. I just don't think the 'kids from small families are better off' argument is actually founded in truth. I'd love to see some statistics though.

Having had a couple of c-sections, to say nothing of pretty poor pregnancies,having more children is not something we are currently considering. We are considering fostering down the track a bit, when the boys are a little older.

As for BC - we use it, and don't have any moral objections. But a small part of me does wonder if I lack the faith in God to equip me to be a mother of more children. I don't think money is any real reason in a first world country. People manage - there's a lot of stuff we don't really need. We have just allowed luxuries to become neccessities.

[Aymn27]

Thank you for sharing your experience. Have you found in talking to others who use the NFP method of birth control that it is usually as effective as it's been in the case of you and your wife? The reason I ask is because I have heard from many of the Roman Catholics who are upset with the ban on artificial birth control that it is not normatively as effective as the pill and other artificial methods, which boast a 99% success rate. I think I read a story of a couple that claimed to be using NFP and had several unexpected children (I suppose they could have just been a statistical fluke, though).

John
John,
Many who "think" they are using NFP are actually using the "rythm" method..NFP involves temperature, charts, counting, mucus, etc (not to get too graphic, LOL!!)...we are lucky in that my wife has a very normal cycle and we can just count from the first day of her last period, abstain for a few days during the "middle" and we are fine (but that's from 10 yrs of doing it)..Others I know have to take temps, etc. I have heard of a few "unplanned", but really..most have confessed they knew they were in the "dangerous zone"...I don't think there is that much variance unless the wife has a very irregular cycle/ovulation thing going on, in which case - I've always heard it would be OK for ABC, out of medical necessity (some would argue that point). So..I don't think many people can honestly say it was "accidental" if they followed the NFP recommendations to a "T". My wife likes it b/c it is natural - she was on the pill when we first got married and did not like it at all - besides the pill is linked to many dangerous side effects - so for that reason, as well as religious, we decided on NFP. But I don't hold those who don't practice NFP as some sort of horrid sinner..

[marciebaby]

NFP would not be an option for me, and millions of other women (ok, I made that figure up, but surely there are quite a few). I generally have a period every 14-16 days-when not on bc pills. Since I ovulate twice a month, I would have to abstain twice as much. Which would really stink! Especially because my husband is in the Air Force and is only home 2 weeks out of the month-although he's been home considerably less than that this fall. That would mean that some months we would be unable to have sex at all. Which may be normal for some couples, but would be torture for us. There are so many other couples in the same boat. A blanket rule that abc is forbidden would just not work for many couples.

Another example-my mom was told after having my brother that she had no business having other children. She went on to have my sister and me, but had to ahve several surgeries and blood transfusions in the process. A few weeks after my sister was born she had an emergency hysterectomy. If she were not sterilized, she would have had to go on some type of abc because any future pregnancies would put her life in further jeopardy.

[Fish and Bread]

Valuing our children could be one reason why having fewer of them can lead to better quality parenting and provision for the ones we do have.

The world is a different place now than it was in OT times. God wanted us to populate the earth. The world is now overcrowded. Does anyone else feel that these facts come into the equation at all besides me?

Actually, I've used that same argument to make that very point in the past. :) Right now I'm trying to abstain from going "all out" with an argument on birth control, though, as for me the purpose of this thread is to learn about one specific aspect of of the issue. I more or less understand why someone would be against it, particularly if they're in communion with the Vatican (and even if they aren't). I'm less certain about the justification for not making exceptions in extreme and unusual circumstances, though.

One of the neat resources of this forum that I think I sometimes underutilize is the sheer level of knowledge, stemming from both experience and from study, of the folks here as a group. When I ask the right questions, I can sometimes really learn a lot of neat stuff. :)

John

[Fish and Bread]

John,
Many who "think" they are using NFP are actually using the "rythm" method..NFP involves temperature, charts, counting, mucus, etc (not to get too graphic, LOL!!)...we are lucky in that my wife has a very normal cycle and we can just count from the first day of her last period, abstain for a few days during the "middle" and we are fine (but that's from 10 yrs of doing it)..Others I know have to take temps, etc. I have heard of a few "unplanned", but really..most have confessed they knew they were in the "dangerous zone"...

Thanks! It's helpful to read a real life perspective.

I don't think there is that much variance unless the wife has a very irregular cycle/ovulation thing going on, in which case - I've always heard it would be OK for ABC, out of medical necessity

Do you know what Vatican teaching, if any, people who believe in that exception base it on? Is there a segment of an encyclical or something that folks point to?

John

[SirTimothy]

The world is a different place now than it was in OT times. God wanted us to populate the earth. The world is now overcrowded. Does anyone else feel that these facts come into the equation at all besides me?

Well, we once did the maths. Every family in the world could have a 40 acre (that's the smallest self-sufficient) farm in the bible belt. Overcrowding is a myth. The problem is the cities are overcrowded, the countryside is becoming abandoned.

Timothy

[svdbygrace]

Valuing our children could be one reason why having fewer of them can lead to better quality parenting and provision for the ones we do have.

The world is a different place now than it was in OT times. God wanted us to populate the earth. The world is now overcrowded. Does anyone else feel that these facts come into the equation at all besides me?

:thumbsup:

[DarthDigger]

value me!!! hehehehehe

[karen freeinchristman]

value me!!! hehehehehe
I hope you know that we do value you, DD! You are the official child of the STR board! And I am glad we don't have too many children on this board, how would we ever look after them all properly??? ^_^

[Wigglesworth]

The tape Marriage and the Eucharist persuaded me that artificial birth control is contrary to God's will. It is available free from the Mary Foundation (http://www.catholicity.com/maryfoundation/marriage.html).

Marriage is a sacrament which God uses to bestow grace. Our relationships with parents, children, and siblings are sacramental and teach us virtue and Godliness. Artificial birth control hacks off the arms and legs of the sacrament.

:crossrc:

[Fish and Bread]

Well, we once did the maths. Every family in the world could have a 40 acre (that's the smallest self-sufficient) farm in the bible belt. Overcrowding is a myth. The problem is the cities are overcrowded, the countryside is becoming abandoned.

Perhaps the problem is economic and governmental systems which don't allow the average person the opportunity to own 40 acres even in the world's richest nations like the United States, let alone third world nations.

John

[erin74]

Well, we once did the maths. Every family in the world could have a 40 acre (that's the smallest self-sufficient) farm in the bible belt. Overcrowding is a myth. The problem is the cities are overcrowded, the countryside is becoming abandoned.

Timothy

You should see what it's like in Australia - if we split the country up almongst it's residents we would get way more than 40 acres I believe. We have a huge problem with everyone living in the cities and nobody wanting to live in the country. And it's not like there's no jobs. I guess one problem is there wouldn't necessarily be a job for both husband and wife.... depending on vocation. So if both are career minded it could be a problem. But honestly if you work in health or education then you're laughing. Any job you want, virtually, in the bush.

[Filia Mariae]

I was just cutting and pasting. Feel free to correct any inaccuracies.

The Catholic moral theology teaches that a woman being raped would commit no sin if she asked her accuser to use a condom, though I sincerely doubt that request would be honored. Nonetheless, the woman wouldn't sin.

Although have you ever heard of a rapist using a condom?

No, though I've not really read up on it.

And if he did, would a woman protest him using a condom?
I sincerely doubt it.

[Simon_Templar]

Well, since there was only one righteous man to ever live, Jesus, that doesn't surprise me. :) I missed the obvious with my first reply to this. :blush: But I know what you were getting at! :) I just think it's always worth the reminder - we're all sinful and in need of God's grace. :)

John

I understand your point and the last thing I would ever want to be classed as is "prosperity doctrine". The gospel has virtually nothing to do with material blessing and nothing at all to do with material "prosperity". However even in Jesus' teachings you will find that we are not to worry about tomorrow why, because God will provide us with food clothing, etc etc. Likewise When Jesus needed money for taxes he pulled it out of a fish's mouth saying basicly don't worry about this stuff because God values you and will take care of you... you may be poor, but you will always have your needs. I grew up relatively poor. Very lower middle class to say the least. I can't claim too much that way because God did bless my family and by the time I was in my teens we were living pretty well (still technically middle to lower middle class on the income charts though). The point is, in my family growing up the things we needed and the blessings we got never came from better financial planning, career goals and planning, investments, or anything like that. What other families, smaller than ours would have had a hard time living on, for us seemed to stretch to cover all our needs, and even a little more. My parents still talk about various times where it literally seemed like money came from out of thin air when we were in need. I have no doubt that this was all God's provision.

[Simon_Templar]

Perhaps the problem is economic and governmental systems which don't allow the average person the opportunity to own 40 acres even in the world's richest nations like the United States, let alone third world nations.

John

Over population is largely a myth propagated by environmental interest groups. The models used to scare people with over population statistics are the typical number juggling mumbo jumbo used whenever an interest groups needs some "numbers don't lie" info to give punch to their claims.
Actual scientific statistical models of the earths population growth etc show pretty much the exact opposite of what the "over population" crowd has been saying.


Basicly what the environmentalist models do is take the population growth over the last 200 years, which includes the industrial and agricultural revolutions that exponentially increased the capability of feeding and providing for population, then extrapolate that population growth rate into the future without end.

The problem there is that growth rate was due to technological and scientific advances that multiplied our ability to produce food and materials necessary to life by probably hundreds of times over. Not to mention the ability of medical advances in that time to prolong life.

In order to sustain that exponential growth we would have to again, increase our production capacity of food, materials, by a hundred times its current level... and then have medical advances that allow us all to double our life span.

In statistical models actuall based on current population trends and statistical science, the models show the earths population topping out in about a decade or two, and then beginning to decline.


Timothy was right in his comments as well.. the current population of the earth could be fed on the production capability of the united states alone. (assuming of course that government controls to keep down production for market/price concerns were removed). Even given the fact that the US government pays farmers all over the country large amounts of money not to grow food crops, there is still a huge surpluss of grain crops which the US government has to essentially purchase every year in order to keep the market from getting flooded, most of this simply rots. (granted that information is some years old.. the government may have found a more creative solution by now.. but I doubt it.)

Ironicly enough, Japan, and most of the western european countries are facing a population shortage crisis right now. Those countries have been at either 0 or negative natural population growth for years and as a result the population has gotten top heavy.. the working age population is much smaller than is needed. This is why a number of the european countries have government subsidies specificly to encourage people to have kids.
In Europe this is creating an additional problem because in order to maintain the necessary working age population to avoid a complete economic colapse they have had to open the floodgates of immigration and the vast majority of immigrants have been muslim. (see Paris in the news). Some of the smaller countries like belgium are at the point where nearly 50% of their population is muslim simply because of immigration. In those countries the muslims have already attempted to force the implementation of Muslim religious law.

The US is standing on the door step of the same ecnomic/population crisis, except our primary immigration group is mexican/hispanic. That is one of the main reasons that the hispanic US population is the fastest growing in the country. It is also the primary driving force a number of politicians who have proposed an amnesty for all illegal immigrants already living in the country.. they are necessary for the work force thus it would actually hurt the economy to kick them out.


Things like hunger and starvation in third world countries and such are entirely due to political strife and instability in those areas. If any one of those countries could stop fighting themselves, and institute a stable government, within a few years they would be able to feed their people and they would be ont he road to prosperity. This has been shown by example in the nations that have actually been able to avoid civil war for a time.

[SirTimothy]

This is why a number of the european countries have government subsidies specificly to encourage people to have kids.

Indeed. Over here I think you can get a 15% decrease in food costs if you've more than 4 kids, possibly it's more, the number's from the top of my head and I don't remember the figure.

Timothy

[Aymn27]

Simon..as usual..you are correct!! LOL..

Also, I can't remember the name of the dude that came up with the population growth/sustainable growth formula - Lord somebody it seems like..but in an Economics class I took (a decade ago, geez) the teacher was a strict RC and showed us why it was wrong - it had something to do with the law of diminishing returns and how at some point the population explosion will reach an equilibrium...anyways, it made a lot of sense to be back then and I've never bought into the over population theory...

Aaron

[svdbygrace]

I hope you know that we do value you, DD! You are the official child of the STR board! And I am glad we don't have too many children on this board, how would we ever look after them all properly??? ^_^

Indeed. :)

[higgs2]

I think that the very places where overpopulation and scarcity of resources are contribution to disease, death and famine are the same places where NFP is not practical, for reasons of hygiene, education, and availability of resources to help people use this practice -- not to mention motivation to comply. So to say that everyone in the world could have their own 40 acres is like saying "let them eat cake". People are dying from hunger, and we want them to chart their body temperatures? People are dying of aids and we don't want them to have condoms? This whole conversation is getting irritating.

[Filia Mariae]

I think that the very places where overpopulation and scarcity of resources are contribution to disease, death and famine are the same places where NFP is not practical, for reasons of hygiene, education, and availability of resources to help people use this practice -- not to mention motivation to comply. So to say that everyone in the world could have their own 40 acres is like saying "let them eat cake". People are dying from hunger, and we want them to chart their body temperatures? People are dying of aids and we don't want them to have condoms? This whole conversation is getting irritating.

You may want to research Blessed Teresa of Calcutta's success teaching NFP in India. (and FYI, not all NFP methods chart temp)

[Simon_Templar]

I think that the very places where overpopulation and scarcity of resources are contribution to disease, death and famine are the same places where NFP is not practical, for reasons of hygiene, education, and availability of resources to help people use this practice -- not to mention motivation to comply. So to say that everyone in the world could have their own 40 acres is like saying "let them eat cake". People are dying from hunger, and we want them to chart their body temperatures? People are dying of aids and we don't want them to have condoms? This whole conversation is getting irritating.

The problem is that birth control or lack there of has nothing whatsoever to do with the problems in these areas. Thus instituting birth control isn't going to help. The problems are almost always political and social. Constant internal war over the course of several decades is going to breed poverty, famine, and pestilence.. giving them birth control isn't going to stop that.
Governments rife with corruption who don't care in the least about their people are going to cause poverty, hunger, and pestilence.. once again birth control isn't going to help.

We have enough food to feed all these starving nations.. you know why they don't get fed... because even when we send them tons upon tons of free food and clothing.. it gets confiscated by the corrupt governments, or warlords, or the governments deliberately block distribution so that the food just rots in warehouses.
This has happened repeatedly to relief efforts from western governments and aid organizations... Thats why clinton sent troops into somalia. Because without military intervention there is simply no way to get the food and materials to the people. Of course we all saw with somalia that military intervention doesn't work either (at least not hands tied half-.... well you get the picture).

Have decades of government mandated birth control made any significant difference in China? no. Because population was not the problem.. the social and governmental system was the problem. It was not until they began to change their social organization that their country began to make positive strides in average living conditions etc.

[Fantine]

I was just cutting and pasting. Feel free to correct any inaccuracies.

Although have you ever heard of a rapist using a condom? And if he did, would a woman protest him using a condom?

He might do so to prevent DNA evidence from being used against him.

[trooper]

I don't want to reject rational thought, but this is really one of these things where once you accept and subject yourself to the teaching of the Church... it all manages to make sense and to work out for yourself personally.

I would also restate my thought that children are now thought as a burden as opposed to a blessing. Poll a group of twenty somethings and see.