Artificial Contraception: Why it is very Charitable & Realistic

[Meathead]

I personally believe the best way of lowering the population would be to drag all of the atheists and agnostics out into the streets and butcher them. Then we could use their blood-soaked corpses as fertilizer to grow crops in straving third world countries.

In reality its the perfect plan. We get rid of a few non-believers (we can eventually find the ones who decide to go into hiding and take care of them as well), and we will be able to grow more food from the fertilizer generated (after all, most of them are compost to begin with), and we can finally get around to feeding all of the hungry in the world.

Happy trails!

 

[RyanL]

I unfortunately don’t have much time to post, but I thought I’d throw this data point out there to show just how “charitable” artificial contraception can be when contrasted with the “extreme” point of view of the Catholics:

• AIDS victims in 1987: Philippines 135 / Thailand 112
• In 1991 the World Health Organization predicted the Philippines would have 80,000 to 90,000 cases and Thailand 60,000 to 80,000 AIDS victims.
• Thailand promoted the use of condoms in massive campaigns, whereas the Catholic Philippines promoted ‘Abstinence’ and ‘Be faithful’.
• The prognosis of the WHO was wrong for both countries:
• 1999: Philippines 1,005 / Thailand 755,000 AIDS victims
  Source: British Medical Journal, volume 328

You might think it’s anomolous, but then there’s Uganda.

Hey, if your ingenious methods kill more folks overseas – more resources for us, right?!?

Oh, but don’t worry, I’m sure your beloved withdrawl method would have made things much better…

Maybe we should look into divorce statistics for artificially contracepting couples vs. NFP couples? I bet that data point would show how right you are…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[gardenswithkids]

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/pop/popfaq.html#1

Thank you for that link. It shows the USAID push to get the poor to use contraception doesn’t produce the voluntary “two children per family” results that you desire. According to the link the average is around three or four children in the nations where contraceptive family planning was most heavily funded. (The study you posted earlier about the Philipines also showed a significantly larger number of children than what you believe desirable.) While many wealthier countries may embrace contraception and small families, the poor don’t seem to be embracing it quite the way you wish they would. *

:"…In the 28 countries with the largest USAID-sponsored family planning programs, the average number of children per family has declined by 1/3rd, from more than 6 to less than 4.

For example, densely populated Bangladesh, the number of children per family has fallen by nearly in half in just four decades. In the 1960s, fewer than 10 percent of women in Bangladesh used a modern family planning method and families averaged over six children. Today, 42 percent of women use a modern method, and couples are having, on average, three children per family… " *
Also according to the link the US Government spends 5% of its USAID funds on family planning, totalling $432 million dollars in a year. That amount of money could go a long way to eliminate poverty, but instead it was spent trying eliminate some of the children of the poor.

Also I found it interesting what that link said about the projected population growth:

" How fast is world population growing?
New 2004 figures from the Population Division of the United Nations Secretariat show the number of people in the world is expected to rise by 2.6 billion, from today’s 6.5 billion to 9.1 billion in 2050. Almost all growth will take place in developing regions, where population is expected to rise from today’s 5.3 billion to 7.8 billion, according to World Population Prospects. **By contrast, developed countries’ population will remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion." **

In other words, people in wealthier countries like the US think world can’t afford too many more children while allowing us to maintain the same high standard of living we currently enjoy. Note that the link said that protection of America’s “vital interest” was one reason for this funding of family planning. People in developed nations have small families and they often want the poor to also have small families. Some people in developed countries fear that other countries populating at a faster rate poses a threat to the world, but seem to neglect the fact that developed nations use a much higher portion of the world resources.

I don’t have the statistics right now, but developed countries use far more of the earth’s resources than the underdeveloped countries. I noted earlier that large families and poverty can play a roll in helping humans learn charity. (Spending $432 million on pushing contraception hardly qualifies as charity to my mind.) It seems that developed nations with few siblings and/or children to teach generosity may become greedier, and some people may not want to have poor people in underdeveloped countries around to remind developed nations of this greed. Developed countries and our overuse of the earth resources seem to me a greater environmental threat than the children of the poor.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I unfortunately don’t have much time to post, but I thought I’d throw this data point out there to show just how “charitable” artificial contraception can be when contrasted with the “extreme” point of view of the Catholics:

source?

And hey, this is about population growth reduction, not STDs. But if you insist about STD, show me your source first so I would know how to better reply to it.

Maybe we should look into divorce statistics for artificially contracepting couples vs. NFP couples? I bet that data point would show how right you are…

now that you mentioned it, please do. remember to put a link to your source.

 

[AgnosTheist]

So your taking back everything you said about contraception ending poverity? That is a complete flip-flop

Im saying everyone should practice birth control, INCLUDING THE RICH.

How do these fallible individuals have an more authority than anyone else? THEY DON"T!! Where’s your light now?

Because those fallible individuals have conducted a scientific survey. The fact is, birth control plays a major role in ending the cycle of poverty.

And when that doesn’t work, then what?? More of what didn’t work in the first place, brilliant!!

but it does work.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Thank you for that link. It shows the USAID push to get the poor to use contraception doesn’t produce the voluntary “two children per family” results that you desire. According to the link the average is around three or four children in the nations where contraceptive family planning was most heavily funded. (The study you posted earlier about the Philipines also showed a significantly larger number of children than what you believe desirable.)

count our blessings, dude. 3 to 4 kids average is a major improvement compared to the 12 kids that people were having in the past. Yo check this out:
As a result of PDA’s extensive family planning efforts in conjunction with the national program, Thailand’s birth rate experienced a dramatic drop from 3.3% in the late 1960s to only 1.2% today.
sli.unimelb.edu.au/pda/medical.htm

Also I found it interesting what that link said about the projected population growth:

that is called the ‘cycle of poverty’. huge families are stuck in poverty & poverty produces huge families. all the more reason to promote birth control. it worked in thailand, it could work elsewhere too.

It seems that developed nations with few siblings and/or children to teach generosity may become greedier

crime rate is higher in denser populations. poor people are desperate people. and desperate people cling to desperate means to survive. all forms of contraception is charity.

 

[RyanL]

source?

Already given.

And hey, this is about population growth reduction, not STDs. But if you insist about STD, show me your source first so I would know how to better reply to it.

No, this thread is about artificial contraception being charitable. And it’s demonstrably not.

But hey, if you want to put your fingers in your ears about the harms included in artificial contraception (as you did with all the environmental concerns I raised earlier on this thread), I can’t stop you. Nope. Can’t stop you one bit. Keep on your high-horse. Keep shouting at the wind that artificial contraception is a bright idea. Keep sluffing off objections.

now that you mentioned it, please do. remember to put a link to your source.

NFP - 0.2% divorce rate. Now, I’ll admit, correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but that’s a pretty darn strong correlation.

How’s your group?

SO…let’s see…divorce, landfills, manufacturing plants and associated depletion of natural resources, chemical pollution of waterways and aquatic life, STDs, objectification of women, fiscal costs, dying societies (replacement rates < 2.1), devaluation of sex, increase in risky behaviors based on false notions of safety…yeah…keep shouting, amigo. Keep shouting.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[AgnosTheist]

Already given.

i think the only link you gave was the one for Uganda. And speaking of Uganda, with its AIDS epidemic i’d rather abstain too.

I dont think condoms are as effective in preventing AIDS as it is as effective in preventing preganancies.

No, this thread is about artificial contraception being charitable. And it’s demonstrably not.

Agreed. Its charitabily is limited to population control, not STDs.

NFP - 0.2% divorce rate. Now, I’ll admit, correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation, but that’s a pretty darn strong correlation.

my friend, that article, the website itself mentions ‘will of god’ too often. So excuse me for questioning the neutrality of it.

Anyway it does make some sense, but in a different angle. Who are the people who would likely insist on limiting themselves to NFP? Isnt it mostly those who are serious with their faith? In that light, it isnt NFP that prevents divorce and promotes family well being, but the spiritual intensity of the couple.

 

[RyanL]

i think the only link you gave was the one for Uganda.

I already gave you a link for Uganda and a source for the Philippines. I’m not aware of any competing data – the facts are rather objective. If you take issue with the data, give me a competing source.

And speaking of Uganda, with its AIDS epidemic i’d rather abstain too.

One would think that with this attitude you would support the Church’s position on artificial contraception in AIDS-ridden countries…but for some reason I don’t think you do.

I dont think condoms are as effective in preventing AIDS as it is as effective in preventing preganancies.

Depending on your source, condoms range in effectiveness estimates from roughly 70%-90% for both.

Agreed. Its charitabily is limited to population control, not STDs.

People dying from STDs doesn’t affect population?

my friend, that article, the website itself mentions ‘will of god’ too often. So excuse me for questioning the neutrality of it.

Surprise! – a Catholic publication talking about the will of God. Wow. You must be impressed with your critical thinking skillz. Regardless, their position on faith doesn’t affect the data collection. If you’re going to write-off the results, do so for a scientific reason and not ideological ones. The studies they cite, BTW, are secular…and, like the data from the Philippines, I’m not aware of any controversy on the point. If you’re going to take issue with the data, please provide an alternate source.

Anyway it does make some sense, but in a different angle. Who are the people who would likely insist on limiting themselves to NFP? Isnt it mostly those who are serious with their faith? In that light, it isnt NFP that prevents divorce and promotes family well being, but the spiritual intensity of the couple.

As I already noted (thanks for noticing, btw ), correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation – but it remains one heck of a correlation.

What you’re ignoring, however, is the level of dialog and intimacy between NFP couples which is seldom matched in artificially contracepting couples. I would assert that it is this which extends marital longevity, not simply comparative religiosity.

I can explain the data from my angle, you from yours, and neither of us can claim to have definitively identified causation based on the data available. All you can definitively say is that there’s one heck of a correlation.

I would take issue with your explanation, though, based in no small part on the divorce statistics among Protestant pastors and Jewish rabbis. They’re undebatably “serious with their faith”, and yet their divorce studies approximate that of secular society. This would seem to refute your proposed explanation…

Even if you were right (which I don’t think you are), wouldn’t the “charitable” thing be to encourage people to be “serious with their faith”? More charitable, at any rate, than simply doling out artificial contraception and living with high divorce rates, which leads to more fatherless homes, leading to a decreased sense of importance regarding the role of the father, leading to higher rates of illegitimate children, leading to normative promiscuity, increased STDs, increased separately housed parents (which is bad for the environment, I might add), and higher poverty rates, in turn exacerbating the problems you’re complaining of in the first place.

I have yet to see you substantively engage any of the points I’ve raised…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[AgnosTheist]

I already gave you a link for Uganda and a source for the Philippines.

i dont think you gave a link to where you got this information:
“AIDS victims in 1987: Philippines 135 / Thailand 112”

One would think that with this attitude you would support the Church’s position on artificial contraception in AIDS-ridden countries…but for some reason I don’t think you do.

if its about aids epidemic i fully support abstinence.

Depending on your source, condoms range in effectiveness estimates from roughly 70%-90% for both.

its much harder to concieve than to contract aids.

People dying from STDs doesn’t affect population?

Dying from STDs isnt exactly anybody’s idea of population birth control.

Surprise! – a Catholic publication talking about the will of God. Wow. You must be impressed with your critical thinking skillz.

it wasnt that obvious since it was called “familyplanning.net”. i had my suspicions but i held my conclusions because I had the impression that you had the sense of using neutral sources.

Regardless, their position on faith doesn’t affect the data collection.

i’d rather play safe for biased sources doesnt always prove to be reliable.

What you’re ignoring, however, is the level of dialog and intimacy between NFP couples which is seldom matched in artificially contracepting couples. I would assert that it is this which extends marital longevity, not simply comparative religiosity.

what is your basis for that blanket statement?

I can explain the data from my angle, you from yours, and neither of us can claim to have definitively identified causation based on the data available. All you can definitively say is that there’s one heck of a correlation.

i’d like to know how you came up with your angle.

I would take issue with your explanation, though, based in no small part on the divorce statistics among Protestant pastors and Jewish rabbis. They’re undebatably “serious with their faith”, and yet their divorce studies approximate that of secular society. This would seem to refute your proposed explanation…

its the catholics who are systematically & strictly compelled to use NFP, not the protestants. Although orthodox jews use NFPs too, they are far outnumbered by catholics. So all those conservative catholics, they are obviously the bulk of that statistic.

Even if you were right (which I don’t think you are), wouldn’t the “charitable” thing be to encourage people to be “serious with their faith”?

perhaps.

More charitable, at any rate, than simply doling out artificial contraception and living with high divorce rates, which leads to more fatherless homes, leading to a decreased sense of importance regarding the role of the father, leading to higher rates of illegitimate children, leading to normative promiscuity, increased STDs, increased separately housed parents (which is bad for the environment, I might add), and higher poverty rates, in turn exacerbating the problems you’re complaining of in the first place.

artificial contraception has nothing to do with any of those.

 

[RyanL]

i dont think you gave a link to where you got this information:

“AIDS victims in 1987: Philippines 135 / Thailand 112”

I didn’t give a link – I gave a source. Way to read critically.

it wasnt that obvious since it was called “familyplanning.net”. i had my suspicions but i held my conclusions because I had the impression that you had the sense of using neutral sources.

1. I take it you didn’t read the link. If you did, you would have noticed that prominently displayed in the top left corner of every page are the words “CATHOLIC Social Science Review”. Again, way to read critically.
2. Once again, the way you’re dismissing concrete, empirical facts based on your ideology and not science is ridiculous. Take issue with the facts or don’t – don’t simply say, “A Catholic said so, which means I won’t believe it.”
3. You have yet to dispute the findings or produce figures to rebut.
4. You’re evading yet again.

i’d rather play safe for biased sources doesnt always prove to be reliable.

1. My source is very open about its bias – it’s not trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
2. The studies my source is relaying are secular. If you think the Catholic source is lying about them in a scientific journal (lying’s still a sin, right?) , look them up yourself. They’re not.
3. You haven’t disputed the facts.
4. You’re still evading – and not well, I might add.

what is your basis for that blanket statement?

Experience. What is your basis for the blanket statement to the contrary?

i’d like to know how you came up with your angle.

Experience and basic psychology (a.k.a., good ol’ common sense). A couple who is forced to communicate with one another on a monthly basis about what their plans are for life probably has a substantially greater level of intimacy and sense of joint-direction than a couple who doesn’t. It has in my life, and it’s basic interpersonal relations that increased dialog makes for a better, more lasting relationship.

Would you disagree?

its the catholics who are systematically & strictly compelled to use NFP, not the protestants. Although orthodox jews use NFPs too, they are far outnumbered by catholics. So all those conservative catholics, they are obviously the bulk of that statistic.

You’re dramatically missing the point. Equally religious folks who don’t use NFP divorce like secular society – equally religious folks who DO use NFP don’t. You have made the claim that religiosity is the distinctive factor – the fact that equally religious folks (i.e., Protestant pastors and Jewish rabbis vs. observant NFP users of all stripes) have such disparate divorce rates seems to make that claim look stupid.

Make more sense now?

artificial contraception has nothing to do with any of those.

Basis? Source? Link? Just to let you know, I’ll reject out-of-hat anything you might present in response because of my ideology.

See how dumb that makes me look? That’s why I don’t do it.

Oh, and an unsubstantiated retort like, “Nuh-uh!” isn’t very persuasive. Maybe next time you could explain to us all why the rise of artificial contraception and the rise of divorce, single-parenthood, etc., all seem to correlate so strongly? Coincidence? Chance? Give us some kind of explanation over and above you’re “they’re not related” response…please…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

NOTICE:

The charity level on this thread has begun to decline. Please self-edit for tone/content or the thread will be closed and further action may be taken.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Because those fallible individuals have conducted a scientific survey. The fact is, birth control plays a major role in ending the cycle of poverty.

but it does work.

A “scientific survey” is not a scientific fact.

Was birth control proven to play a major role in ending the cycle of poverty?

The answer has to be a flat “no”. It was a theory floated by this small portion of a smaller scientific community in this instance, and by no means makes it a scientific fact. Science can not prove beyond a shadow of a dought any such thing. Such a “scientific study” would also involve economics, not a science, a theory at best.

Prove It! Personal opinions backed up by a community of similar thinking individuals does not make a “fact”. Serious discussion can only continue when this behavior, stops.

This is a too serious of a topic to keep interjecting personal opinion as fact.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I didn’t give a link – I gave a source. Way to read critically.

In the net, when people asks for the ‘source’ what they need is the link. Your articles are meaningless without a source/link.

1. I take it you didn’t read the link. If you did, you would have noticed that prominently displayed in the top left corner of every page are the words “CATHOLIC Social Science Review”. Again, way to read critically.

How do you think i found out that it mentioned ‘god’? do forgive me for not noticing the fine prints.

1. Once again, the way you’re dismissing concrete, empirical facts based on your ideology and not science is ridiculous. Take issue with the facts or don’t – don’t simply say, “A Catholic said so, which means I won’t believe it.”
2. You’re evading yet again.
3. My source is very open about its bias – it’s not trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

propagandas use facts a lot. so excuse me for dismissing your biased sources.

1. You have yet to dispute the findings or produce figures to rebut.

I agree with the findings. Those who use NFP are also those people with lesser divorce cases.

1. The studies my source is relaying are secular. If you think the Catholic source is lying about them in a scientific journal (lying’s still a sin, right?) , look them up yourself. They’re not.

The catholic church has a very good track record for covering things up. So excuse me for doubting its credibility.

1. You haven’t disputed the facts.

you havent disputed the facts that artificial contraception helped poor countries from sinking deeper into poverty.

Experience.

thats very convincing.

What is your basis for the blanket statement to the contrary?

Like I said anything to the contrary.

Experience and basic psychology (a.k.a., good ol’ common sense). A couple who is forced to communicate with one another on a monthly basis about what their plans are for life probably has a substantially greater level of intimacy and sense of joint-direction than a couple who doesn’t. It has in my life, and it’s basic interpersonal relations that increased dialog makes for a better, more lasting relationship.

Would you disagree?

I agree. But that does not explain how condom & withrawal method users are less intimate. Sex itself is a powerful form of intimacy & communication. Its a unifying factor in marriage. The more sex the better for a couple!

You’re dramatically missing the point. Equally religious folks who don’t use NFP divorce like secular society – equally religious folks who DO use NFP don’t. You have made the claim that religiosity is the distinctive factor – the fact that equally religious folks (i.e., Protestant pastors and Jewish rabbis vs. observant NFP users of all stripes) have such disparate divorce rates seems to make that claim look stupid.

not just religiousness, but ‘catholic religiousness’. may i remind you that catholic religiousness prohibits divorce.

Basis? Source? Link? Just to let you know, I’ll reject out-of-hat anything you might present in response because of my ideology.

i am on a negative stance so proof is not my burden. but anyway since i love to reason…

Oh, and an unsubstantiated retort like, “Nuh-uh!” isn’t very persuasive.

…since artificial contraception has nothing to do with divorce rates, then the rest of your chaining assertions have nothing to hold to in the first place. easy.

Maybe next time you could explain to us all why the rise of artificial contraception and the rise of divorce, single-parenthood, etc., all seem to correlate so strongly? Coincidence? Chance?

coincidence. it just so happens that the rcc prohibits both artificial contraception & divorce.

 

[AgnosTheist]

A “scientific survey” is not a scientific fact.

but its still credible.

Was birth control proven to play a major role in ending the cycle of poverty?

It sure helped thailand.

Prove It!

i believe i gave the link already.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

but its still credible. No, not really. A theory from ten people in a room is not “credible” no matter what their degree is in. It’s an opinion.

It sure helped thailand. Opinion. Where all other factors ruled out? The answer is of course, No! It would be impossible to do so.

i believe i gave the link already. credibility does not lie in an internet posting.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

propagandas use facts a lot. so excuse me for dismissing your biased sources. Ditto

The catholic church has a very good track record for covering things up. So excuse me for doubting its credibility. Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. Doubt his credibility if you wish.

you havent disputed the facts that artificial contraception helped poor countries from sinking deeper into poverty. You haven’t provided any “facts” to dispute, only opinions.

not just religiousness, but ‘catholic religiousness’. may i remind you that catholic religiousness prohibits divorce. Wrong! Divorce is not a sin according to Christ speaking through the Church. Look it up!

coincidence. it just so happens that the rcc prohibits both artificial contraception & divorce. Wrong on both counts. God prohibits contraception, to use it is to be disobedient to God. The Church is given to us to makes sure that you understand God’s teachings. Diviorce in and of itself is not a sin. Look it up.

Your arguments are not with the Church on this stuff, they are with God.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Wrong! Divorce is not a sin according to Christ speaking through the Church. Look it up!

And look I did:

*In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ Himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been consummated; *

newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

 

[Sean_Boyle]

And look I did:

*In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ Himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been consummated; *newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

Correct! Keep reading, you’ll find the full truth if you read further into the text. This is just a small defined snipet of what is written about marriage.

this article points out that a marriage, witnessed by God can’t be dissolved. See Matt ch. 19.

A civil divorce is still not a sin with good reason, but your still married in the eyes of God with a civil divorce. Any remarriage after a civil divorce is a sin. A person can’t be married to two living people at once in the eyes of God. There is your confusion.

 

[AgnosTheist]

^ So whats your point in saying “Divorce is not a sin according to Christ speaking through the Church”.