Artificial Contraception: Why it is very Charitable & Realistic

[adam_in_ohio]

1. Artificial Contraception is realistic because the world is drowning in human population & humans cant stop having sex.

If overpopulation was a problem. Can’t or won’t?

 

[stinkcat_14]

where did you get those figures? on page 10 of the article the median was in between 41k to 60k, and a sudden jump to 81k in the santa clara county.

I got the figures for median income by family size in california from:

census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html

I calculated the expenditures for food based on the pie chart which said that for the family of four, 17.4% of the budget was spent on food. Which meant that the typical family of four spent $730 per month on food.

 

[AgnosTheist]

If overpopulation was a problem. Can’t or won’t?

I think its a little of both. Though we have free will, we are still heavily influenced by our strong natural sexual urges.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I got the figures for median income by family size in california from:

census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html

I calculated the expenditures for food based on the pie chart which said that for the family of four, 17.4% of the budget was spent on food. Which meant that the typical family of four spent $730 per month on food.

but where did you get the “$6233” figure? On this page its only 54k per anum.

census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06/statemhi2.html

 

[stinkcat_14]

but where did you get the “$6233” figure? On this page its only 54k per anum.

census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06/statemhi2.html

If you click on the link I provided, it gives median income by state and family size. I have clicked on my link in both your and my posts and it goes to the correct table. Your link is for a different table, which is not broken down by family size.

 

[adam_in_ohio]

“Won’t” is very different from “can’t”. With the stance of you have stated on the 1st post I don’t see how it’s a little of both.

 

[AgnosTheist]

“Won’t” is very different from “can’t”. With the stance of you have stated on the 1st post I don’t see how it’s a little of both.

“Won’t” is about free will.

“Can’t” is about physiology.

Its a little of both because physiology has strong influence over free will.

 

[gardenswithkids]

1. Artificial Contraception is charitable in a crowded world because because a reduced family size help conserve resources, which is beneficial to everybody.
2. Artificial Contraception is a charitable option for couples in poverty for the obvious reason that couple would be able to care well for the limited number of children that they can afford to raise.
3. Artificial Contraception is realistic because the world is drowning in human population & humans cant stop having sex.

I have several questions for the op regarding his religion/philosophy:

Do you accept as dogma that there are too many humans?

Is this part of your dogma that humans are part of nature? or is there something different about humans that makes human use of environmental resource different from when other animals use environmental resources?

How many children does your faith say the rest of us humans can have? Do you plan to force your religious views on the rest of us or only on the poor?

Has the fact occured to you that poor families with many children often use less of the earth resources than wealthy families with fewer children?

Edit: One more question: as you express concern about the cost of feeding a family in California. Have you considered that the greater threat to health and nutrition in the US is not starvation, but obesity? In the “average US family”, the same amount of food could feed more children and the children might be healthier for it as childhood obesity could be reduced.

 

[adam_in_ohio]

“Won’t” is about free will.

“Can’t” is about physiology.

Its a little of both because physiology has strong influence over free will.

“Can’t” is not about physiology. “can’t” would be about biology. for example I “can’t” stop growing taller because I want too. If my biology is programed to be a taller than average person, I’m gona be a tall person. Regardless of my physiology.

 

[AgnosTheist]

“Can’t” is not about physiology. “can’t” would be about biology. for example I “can’t” stop growing taller because I want too. If my biology is programed to be a taller than average person, I’m gona be a tall person. Regardless of my physiology.

Main Entry: **phys·i·ol·o·gy **

*1 : a branch of biology that deals with the functions and activities of life or of living matter (as organs, tissues, or cells) and of the physical and chemical phenomena involved — compare anatomy
2 : the organic processes and phenomena of an organism or any of its parts or of a particular bodily process *

webster.com/dictionary/physiology

All mamals, including us humans, are programmed to have sex. And we have hormones that triggers this urge. We can resist, but its not easy.

Cant & Wont. Its a little of both.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Do you accept as dogma that there are too many humans?

yes

Is this part of your dogma that humans are part of nature?

of course.

or is there something different about humans that makes human use of environmental resource different from when other animals use environmental resources?

thats too obvious. of course our use & demand for resources are radically different from other species.

How many children does your faith say the rest of us humans can have?

my faith has no such dictates. common sense tells me a maximum of two.

Do you plan to force your religious views on the rest of us or only on the poor?

i have no religion.

Has the fact occured to you that poor families with many children often use less of the earth resources than wealthy families with fewer children?

its a little of both. large poor families consume more food. large wealthy families wastes more non-food materials.

the ideal would be small wealthy families. who doesnt want to get rich?

 

[adam_in_ohio]

Sorry I was reading too fast I was seeing Psychology Oops:blush:

 

[Sean_Boyle]

With careful consideration and thought and a careful read of Humane Vitae I just cannot see how God is offended when inside a marriage people practice contraception. My mom had TEN children in 13 years before the pill was available. I’m one of 8 that lived. For being the best parent to each kid, providing each with care, love, college and extracurricular activies, just having all the children possible makes no sense. It’s at the least extremely impractical. If it’s OK to “naturally” contracept through NFP, what is the big deal about using a pill? It is a medical development. Would you not use penecillin because it is unnatural? There are medical reasons why it’s beneficial for someone to take the pill, good medical reasons why some woman should not get pregnant. I think it is responsible to use the pill in a marriage when the couple doesn’t want more children, needs to put off having children financially, or has other medical reasons. When the encyclical came out I think the Pope was in a bit of a social panic about the detrimental effects of the pill on morals. It indeed did have a detrimental effect but I serioulsy don’t believe that it is morally wrong to use the pill within marriage. I know any official Catholic clergy would say I’m incorrect but I must rely on my own conscience ---- which is also in the catechism. Of course there is never a circumstance in which the church says you can use it. I suspect there are millions who are in my shoes with a lot less real consideration of the details of the encyclical.

Your parents sound like wonderful people.

“if” the pill had been available to them, which of the ten children would they have eliminated to make life better for them. That question should give you a sense of why and how contraction is so seriously wrong!

“follow your conscience” yes, that is in the catechism. You forgot to include the part about the well formed conscience. When you say the Church is wrong (which by the way is really saying Christ was wrong, the two are one) you no longer qualify as having a well formed conscience as described in the catechism.

Your saying that poor people shouldn’t have children. Your saying it somewhat indirectly. Think about that for a moment. What sort of a class system would that set up in society. People with money get to have children. Poor people, no children.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

who doesnt want to get rich?

I don’t. And I would like to have more than two children.

 

[stinkcat_14]

its a little of both. large poor families consume more food. large wealthy families wastes more non-food materials.

the ideal would be small wealthy families. who doesnt want to get rich?

Actually, your logic is quite skewed here. A small wealthy family would waste more nonfood materials than a large wealthy family. Because, all else equal, a larger family will spend more on food, and thereby have less to spend on other stuff. A small wealthy family will spend less on food and more on other stuff.

Food is biodegradable, the other stuff can be quite toxic. So the question is, why is a small wealthy family preferred to a large one?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Actually, your logic is quite skewed here. A small wealthy family would waste more nonfood materials than a large wealthy family. Because, all else equal, a larger family will spend more on food, and thereby have less to spend on other stuff. A small wealthy family will spend less on food and more on other stuff.

1. i did not say otherwise.
2. you are erroneously assuming that the wealthy has to spend their every penny. wealthy people knows how to save. One major difference between a large wealthy family and an equally wealthy but small family would be the size of their savings. thus it is not necessary that the smaller family is more wasteful.

Food is biodegradable, the other stuff can be quite toxic.

Food production destroys the environment. Like how brazil destroyed millions of hectares of jungle to make room for farming. and thats what happened to my country, the philippines.

So the question is, why is a small wealthy family preferred to a large one?

because however way you look at it, a wealthy family of 9 would still waste more & eat more compared to a small family of 4, even if the 2 kids are spoiled.

thats

7 ipods compared to 2
7 plasma tvs compared to 2.

assuming that the 2 kids are spoiled gets two of each, thats

7 ipods compared to 4.
7 plasma tvs compared to 4.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Food production destroys the environment. Like how brazil destroyed millions of hectares of jungle to make room for farming. and thats what happened to my country, the philippines.

Brazil is being cleared to raise cattle, to feed the rich, not raise rice or wheat for the populations of the world. Try again.

because however way you look at it, a wealthy family of 9 would still waste more & eat more compared to a small family of 4, even if the 2 kids are spoiled. Only in the little world within your mind. The real world doesn’t work like that.

thats

7 ipods compared to 2
7 plasma tvs compared to 2.

assuming that the 2 kids are spoiled gets two of each, thats

7 ipods compared to 4.
7 plasma tvs compared to 4.

Now assume that the large family does without the stuff they don’t need to survive, and only the family of four with 2 spoiled kids have ipods and plasma tvs. Now which is waistful?

 

[stinkcat_14]

One major difference between a large wealthy family and an equally wealthy but small family would be the size of their savings. thus it is not necessary that the smaller family is more wasteful.

And of course, where is most of our savings? In oil companies that drill offshore, in electronics manufacturers that produce gadgets that will be toxic waste in 5 years, in electric utilities that burn oil and coal which pollute the air. Are you saying that drilling for more oil and building more power plants is more desireable for the planet than having kids?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Brazil is being cleared to raise cattle, to feed the rich, not raise rice or wheat for the populations of the world. Try again.

Thanks for proving my point that large scale deforestation occurs because of food production. Try again.

Only in the little world within your mind. The real world doesn’t work like that.

your rantings prove nothing.

Now assume that the large family does without the stuff they don’t need to survive, and only the family of four with 2 spoiled kids have ipods and plasma tvs. Now which is

Now assume that the small family does without the stuff they don’t need to survive, and only the family of nine with 7 spoiled kids have ipods and plasma tvs. Now which is waistful?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Now assume that the small family does without the stuff they don’t need to survive, and only the family of nine with 7 spoiled kids have ipods and plasma tvs. Now which is waistful?

If you don’t think people have the ability to abstain from sex, how in the world do you think people are going to give up the toys such as ipods, plasma tv’s, etc.