Birth control in less developed nations

[Kelt]

Since you have chosen to speak for me, I will return the favor. You forgot about that pesky thing call free will.

I haven’t at all chosen to speak for you, I was only expanding your own answer to cover other beliefs too.
As free will is what makes us human it can hardly be pesky! You use your free will to come to your conclusions and others use it to come to different conclusions - some are big differences while some are tiny, but differences nonetheless. Are you saying that if I use my free will to have different BELIEFS to you, then I am somehow WILFULLY using that free will to do this? Because then I would have to really believe the same as you before I could be acting WILFULLY against this belief…but that of course, doesn’t make sense! If I believe something to be true, why would I wilfully make myself DISbelieve, or just say that I didn’t believe it?

What proof? There is only evidence, reasoning and revelation from God.

Indeed, what proof? We all have ‘evidence’ before us if we look, but there’s a lot out there…Muslims and Jews and Hindus for example, also have the same powers of reasoning to apply to evidence and they come to different conclusions. Even the proponents of the same religion disagree on certain points as you know. What you believe to be revelation from God, you have concluded from evidence and use of your reason.

What makes you think I haven’t?

You don’t have to say that. It’s perfectly obvious that you do…think about it - it’s a figure of speech, a plea to focus on a point, that’s all.

I will give credit where credit is due.

That is all anyone can ask. I have absolutely no desire to part you from your beliefs, in case you think that’s what I’m trying to do. “Fat chance!” You’d say to me if I was!!
No, my objection is only that you claim the monopoly on ‘The Truth’. Sole ownership of universal truth. Nobody has…that’s why there are many religions, and there always have been so many religions.

 

[davidv]

I haven’t at all chosen to speak for you, I was only expanding your own answer to cover other beliefs too.
As free will is what makes us human it can hardly be pesky! You use your free will to come to your conclusions and others use it to come to different conclusions - some are big differences while some are tiny, but differences nonetheless. Are you saying that if I use my free will to have different BELIEFS to you, then I am somehow WILFULLY using that free will to do this? Because then I would have to really believe the same as you before I could be acting WILFULLY against this belief…but that of course, doesn’t make sense! If I believe something to be true, why would I wilfully make myself DISbelieve, or just say that I didn’t believe it?

Indeed, what proof? We all have ‘evidence’ before us if we look, but there’s a lot out there…Muslims and Jews and Hindus for example, also have the same powers of reasoning to apply to evidence and they come to different conclusions. Even the proponents of the same religion disagree on certain points as you know. What you believe to be revelation from God, you have concluded from evidence and use of your reason.

You don’t have to say that. It’s perfectly obvious that you do…think about it - it’s a figure of speech, a plea to focus on a point, that’s all.

That is all anyone can ask. I have absolutely no desire to part you from your beliefs, in case you think that’s what I’m trying to do. “Fat chance!” You’d say to me if I was!!
No, my objection is only that you claim the monopoly on ‘The Truth’. Sole ownership of universal truth. Nobody has…that’s why there are many religions, and there always have been so many religions.

Please quote where I said I have a monopoly on truth. This clearly not in accord with Church teaching, and is not my position.

 

[Kelt]

Please quote where I said I have a monopoly on truth. This clearly not in accord with Church teaching, and is not my position.

You have been claiming that Catholicism has The Truth and so you presumably, as a Catholic, faithfully following church teachings therefore share that monopoly over all other religions, and none, for The Truth. If I have misunderstood- what have you been claiming about truth?

 

[davidv]

You have been claiming that Catholicism has The Truth and so you presumably, as a Catholic, faithfully following church teachings therefore share that monopoly over all other religions, and none, for The Truth. If I have misunderstood- what have you been claiming about truth?

The Church has the Truth, Jesus, as her head. And in the case of abc, her teaching that it immoral is the truth.

Please quote official Church teaching the she has a monopoly on truth.

 

[Hans_W]

The Church has the Truth, Jesus, as her head. And in the case of abc, her teaching that it immoral is the truth.

Please quote official Church teaching the she has a monopoly on truth.

That’s the old “my religion is better than yours” argument. This is fundamentalist’s thinking and doesn’t get us anywhere.

That’s why I like our Pope Francis so much. He tries to get the Church out of this kind of mindset.

 

[Kelt]

The Church has the Truth, Jesus, as her head. And in the case of abc, her teaching that it immoral is the truth.

Please quote official Church teaching the she has a monopoly on truth.

You’ve just claimed it for her yourself. Monopoly means ‘the exclusive possession’. You’ve just claimed it on behalf of the Catholic Church for Truth.
I suppose you can split hairs and acknowledge some other denominations ( or even religions?) can own SOME truths but just not all of them. So as a matter of semantics, therefore Catholicism doesn’t literally have a monopoly…?
If we’re going to get picky over words, you can’t claim the ‘truth’ over a matter of human morality. It is a human concept and is therefore subject to human opinions within the society of the time - right and wrong is a human concept - you don’t find it anywhere else in the natural world. So, it is for us to struggle with, it’s what being human is all about and religions guide their followers - that’s what they’re for. Other than it being obviously ‘true’ that the world would be a better place if everyone was nice to each other, there are no universal truths in morality like in mathematics.
For example, one of the commandments is thou shalt not kill ( is that a ‘truth’?) but religion finds a way around this when it needs to…it can even justify genocide in the OT.

 

[davidv]

That’s the old “my religion is better than yours” argument. This is fundamentalist’s thinking and doesn’t get us anywhere.

That’s why I like our Pope Francis so much. He tries to get the Church out of this kind of mindset.

What is “fundamentalist’s thinking” and how does it apply in this case?

Truth is the primary fundamental. Is this bad?

 

[davidv]

You’ve just claimed it for her yourself. Monopoly means ‘the exclusive possession’. You’ve just claimed it on behalf of the Catholic Church for Truth.
I suppose you can split hairs and acknowledge some other denominations ( or even religions?) can own SOME truths but just not all of them. So as a matter of semantics, therefore Catholicism doesn’t literally have a monopoly…?
If we’re going to get picky over words, you can’t claim the ‘truth’ over a matter of human morality. It is a human concept and is therefore subject to human opinions within the society of the time - right and wrong is a human concept - you don’t find it anywhere else in the natural world. So, it is for us to struggle with, it’s what being human is all about and religions guide their followers - that’s what they’re for. Other than it being obviously ‘true’ that the world would be a better place if everyone was nice to each other, there are no universal truths in morality like in mathematics.
For example, one of the commandments is thou shalt not kill ( is that a ‘truth’?) but religion finds a way around this when it needs to…it can even justify genocide in the OT.

Apparently I am not able to communicate very well, because this does not address my points.

I have said what I need to. Good day.

 

[Sarcelle]

If anyone could prove they had the ultimate truth about life, the universe and everything, life would be easy-peasy wouldn’t it? One religion, all in agreement because there was proof of ‘the truth’.
But you don’t have proof…you have a belief (just as followers of other religions do) that you have found a ‘proof’ that satisfies you…therefore you argue your opinion!

So do you.

In the end we are all arguing from different postulates. Even mathematics, contrary, to the opinion here, rests on proofs that derive its surety from postulates. Postulates are defined as unproven statements that are generally accepted as true.

It’s just like you live in what you perceive to be a Euclidean world and I live in what I perceive to be a non-Euclidean world and we both argue from postulates that makes sense in our world but is nonsense to the other. In the end it all results in a lot of hot air.

 

[Kelt]

So do you.

In the end we are all arguing from different postulates. Even mathematics, contrary, to the opinion here, rests on proofs that derive its surety from postulates. Postulates are defined as unproven statements that are generally accepted as true.

It’s just like you live in what you perceive to be a Euclidean world and I live in what I perceive to be a non-Euclidean world and we both argue from postulates that makes sense in our world but is nonsense to the other. In the end it all results in a lot of hot air.

Yes of course I do, but don’t you think argument/debate makes us really think through our OWN ideas and assumptions and also can give us more understanding of the ideas of OTHERS - even if we don’t end up thinking alike!? I don’t want to make assumptions about people’s beliefs based on what I might pick up in the media or hearsay. When you know about a subject ( no I’m not claiming this philosophy is one I 'know ’ about!) and you see it misrepresented in the media, you realise how many things about which we have only half truths. If my work in charity rubs up against Catholic charities I now have a better understanding of their beliefs. So while you’re right about arguing from postulates, I don’t think dialogue and constantly testing our own assumptions is ever a waste of time, even when we know we’re never going to think alike in the end.
davidv was repeatedly claiming the ‘truth’ for Catholisism and I was objecting to that - not his ‘beliefs’. He ‘states’ abc is immoral…I don’t ‘believe’ it is. You sum it up better than me - we both argue from postulates…

 

[davidv]

Yes of course I do, but don’t you think argument/debate makes us really think through our OWN ideas and assumptions and also can give us more understanding of the ideas of OTHERS - even if we don’t end up thinking alike!? I don’t want to make assumptions about people’s beliefs based on what I might pick up in the media or hearsay. When you know about a subject ( no I’m not claiming this philosophy is one I 'know ’ about!) and you see it misrepresented in the media, you realise how many things about which we have only half truths. If my work in charity rubs up against Catholic charities I now have a better understanding of their beliefs. So while you’re right about arguing from postulates, I don’t think dialogue and constantly testing our own assumptions is ever a waste of time, even when we know we’re never going to think alike in the end.
davidv was repeatedly claiming the ‘truth’ for Catholisism and I was objecting to that - not his ‘beliefs’. He ‘states’ abc is immoral…I don’t ‘believe’ it is. You sum it up better than me - we both argue from postulates…

So what are the postulates that you use to arrive at the conclusion that abc is moral?

 

[Kelt]

So what are the postulates that you use to arrive at the conclusion that abc is moral?

Well you won’t agree but I will tell you, as you asked.
Our world population of people is growing unsustainably. As I write this I am watching a programme on the Cambodian rain forest being destroyed by big business while the indigenous population are being displaced. Such is our growing Western population’s wealth and appetite for hardwoods and cheap land to plant rubber trees on. Flora and fauna are being destroyed sometimes before we have even discovered them. What’s the problem you might say? We share the planet and our lives are all inter-related.
In rich countries our unsustainable lifestyle is degrading other parts of the world often more than our own. It depends on cheap labour, slavery and pollution. Poor families in India are giving away their children to traffickers - in the hope that they are going to good jobs promised them. They cannot afford to keep so many children - how else can people ‘give away’ their children?
In Mali we are trying to help people in poverty who have families of 18 children. This keeps them in poverty, and in places where health care is scarce it is shortening women’s lives.
Our economic model which requires growth growth and more growth is unsustainable, we are not the only inhabitants of this planet and not so special - the world would carry on more happily without us if we can’t find a way of living more sustainably with less people. The solution is not to try and make everyone richer ( as if that idea’d ever work anyway) In the west we have got used to having more ‘stuff’ - the planet can’t support more and more people having more and more stuff.
Abc is not killing anyone and I believe in life for the living BEFORE death.
(And I haven’t even STARTED on how we’re messing up the seas…)

 

[davidv]

Well you won’t agree but I will tell you, as you asked.
Our world population of people is growing unsustainably.

Really? Base on what? One TV show?

As I write this I am watching a programme on the Cambodian rain forest being destroyed by big business while the indigenous population are being displaced. Such is our growing Western population’s wealth and appetite for hardwoods and cheap land to plant rubber trees on. Flora and fauna are being destroyed sometimes before we have even discovered them. What’s the problem you might say? We share the planet and our lives are all inter-related.

How will abc encourage more sharing and better stewardship of our resources?

In rich countries our unsustainable lifestyle is degrading other parts of the world often more than our own.

How does abc prevent this?

It depends on cheap labour, slavery and pollution. Poor families in India are giving away their children to traffickers - in the hope that they are going to good jobs promised them. They cannot afford to keep so many children - how else can people ‘give away’ their children?
In Mali we are trying to help people in poverty who have families of 18 children. This keeps them in poverty, and in places where health care is scarce it is shortening women’s lives.
Our economic model which requires growth growth and more growth is unsustainable

How will abc change this model?

, we are not the only inhabitants of this planet and not so special - the world would carry on more happily without us if we can’t find a way of living more sustainably with less people. The solution is not to try and make everyone richer ( as if that idea’d ever work anyway) In the west we have got used to having more ‘stuff’ - the planet can’t support more and more people having more and more stuff.
Abc is not killing anyone and I believe in life for the living BEFORE death.
(And I haven’t even STARTED on how we’re messing up the seas…)

It sure seems to me there are some huge leaps in logic to attribute all of these problems to the lack of abc. What is ignored is the personal basis for choosing it, that is, satisfaction of personal wants without the natural consequences. This also seems to imply the ethic of utilitarianism. Why is it the proper measure of morality?

 

[St_Francis]

Hi Kelt,
I made it back. I’d looked forward to your response but see my post was the last one on the page so thought you might have missed it.

But you disagreed with the Kenyan bishops when they did that?

*Evaluate. *Even I knew the housing bubble would bust, and I couldn’t figure out why everyone was falling for it for so long. OTOH, for over 200 years we’ve heard prophecies of the danger of overpopulation, and after Malthus it was like, *this *time, it’s *really *true! but so far, nothing has happened. Oh, sure, there have been isolated instances of the population outstripping the resources, but not a world-wide collapse.

And Weller’s peak oil theory of the recession aside (in order to find out anything about that, I had to search for it separately), the real cause was the “irrational exuberance” of people falling for the housing bubble, which was built on made-up financial instruments.

Now, AGW, which you mention, may be true, but my investigations lead me to question its source and the related forecasts. Thus I consider the long-term ramifications of the proposed solutions and I have concerns, two things you agreed people should do. You don’t want them to be unaware and hand over their money unthinkingly and trusting other people will do the best thing, right?

That’s kind of like an anorexic saying to the doctor that her goal of being 100 pounds is perfectly ok because when she was 12 she weighed only 100 pounds and was percectly healthy, leaving out the fact that she was also quite a bit shorter!

The downside of a sudden and drastic reduction of population is what the West is facing now: lots of old people, few young people. Putting off starting to have children and ending up trying to care for elderly parents and children at the same time. Being the only child available to care for the parents, instead of one of two or more.

And of course, being the elderly person for whom there is little help…

Providing immediate aid when necessary, but then working towards helping the people of the area become self-reliant, to create their own workable economy, not based on working for transnationals corporations who will pull out when the wages get too high.

 

[Kelt]

Really? Base on what? One TV show?

As you know nothing about me or what I have seen and studied, that’s a cheap shot. I guess I asked for it as I included it - it was just as an EXAMPLE of what makes my blood boil.

How will abc encourage more sharing and better stewardship of our resources?

How will it not? I am doing my best in my small way by supporting charities on the ground, helping poor people to remain self-sufficient and hopefully resist the temptation to be bribed by big business coming in.
But basically you’ve got to remember; more people = more resources used (unless you can make sure that the poorer people cannot aspire to our planet hungry lifestyle in the west. As long as they stay poor, we’re OK.

How does abc prevent this?

Well, of course, we’re going to have to accept the fact that we’ll have to stop using resources like we have a spare planet…but to answer this specific question…more people = more resources used (and that’s a bigger deal in the west isn’t it!)
Incidentally, look at our way of life now - so many of our essential jobs rely on women in the workforce. How could our economy possibly work if it had to be allowed for, that ALL women on the workforce could at any time be on unplanned maternity leave? They would be getting pregnant accidentally (NFP notoriously unreliable) all over the place at a huge cost to industry/country. If they had the choice, an employer would quite simply never employ a married woman - just like they never used to - had you ever thought why that was - that women used to have to give up their jobs on marriage?
And then families of even 6 or 7 children couldn’t even all get into a car together - modern life runs around road travel. Unless you buy BIG gas-guzzling people-carriers…more resources…ad infinitude.

How will abc change this model?

Thought I’d made that obvious.
Poor families will be able to put their meagre resources into fewer children. They will live more sustainably and keep their community. People can stay and won’t be forced to chance it in the cities where they will be exploited because they are more naive. They won’t have to give away their children when a people-trafficker comes along. They will need them at home. Useful instead of a burden, to put it bluntly.

It sure seems to me there are some huge leaps in logic to attribute all of these problems to the lack of abc. What is ignored is the personal basis for choosing it, that is, satisfaction of personal wants without the natural consequences. This also seems to imply the ethic of utilitarianism. Why is it the proper measure of morality?

Well an unsustainable lifestyle (practiced by Catholics and non-Catholics alike) is a pretty good example of the satisfaction of wants without ACKNOWLEDGING the natural consequences isn’t it?!!
The ‘want’ of an enjoyable sex-life with one’s spouse doesn’t strike most people as an immoral concept. It’s consequences save lives, not blights them. On the other hand, our ‘want’ of a western lifestyle without any limits - “let’s have more stuff!” is going to cause great hardship and death. However, many poor people in the world will have suffered by it before the west will be begrudgingly willing to do anything about it.

 

[davidv]

As you know nothing about me or what I have seen and studied, that’s a cheap shot. I guess I asked for it as I included it - it was just as an EXAMPLE of what makes my blood boil.

How is asking for evidence of a claim (unsustainable growth) a cheap shot.

How will it not?

I asked first.

I am doing my best in my small way by supporting charities on the ground, helping poor people to remain self-sufficient and hopefully resist the temptation to be bribed by big business coming in.

But basically you’ve got to remember; more people = more resources used (unless you can make sure that the poorer people cannot aspire to our planet hungry lifestyle in the west. As long as they stay poor, we’re OK.

True. But where is the connection to abc. Abc has been widely available for decades. Seems like a non-factor to me.

Well, of course, we’re going to have to accept the fact that we’ll have to stop using resources like we have a spare planet…but to answer this specific question…more people = more resources used (and that’s a bigger deal in the west isn’t it!)

I have not seen a coherent answer as to why abc will stop this.

Incidentally, look at our way of life now - so many of our essential jobs rely on women in the workforce. How could our economy possibly work if it had to be allowed for, that ALL women on the workforce could at any time be on unplanned maternity leave? They would be getting pregnant accidentally (NFP notoriously unreliable) all over the place at a huge cost to industry/country. If they had the choice, an employer would quite simply never employ a married woman - just like they never used to - had you ever thought why that was - that women used to have to give up their jobs on marriage?

And then families of even 6 or 7 children couldn’t even all get into a car together - modern life runs around road travel. Unless you buy BIG gas-guzzling people-carriers…more resources…ad infinitude.

Thought I’d made that obvious.
Poor families will be able to put their meagre resources into fewer children. They will live more sustainably and keep their community. People can stay and won’t be forced to chance it in the cities where they will be exploited because they are more naive. They won’t have to give away their children when a people-trafficker comes along. They will need them at home. Useful instead of a burden, to put it bluntly.

Well an unsustainable lifestyle (practiced by Catholics and non-Catholics alike) is a pretty good example of the satisfaction of wants without ACKNOWLEDGING the natural consequences isn’t it?!!
The ‘want’ of an enjoyable sex-life with one’s spouse doesn’t strike most people as an immoral concept.

Its only immoral when abc is included.

It’s consequences save lives, not blights them. On the other hand, our ‘want’ of a western lifestyle without any limits - “let’s have more stuff!” is going to cause great hardship and death. However, many poor people in the world will have suffered by it before the west will be begrudgingly willing to do anything about it.

Again why is abc the answer. The connection is pretty nebulous to me.

 

[Kelt]

How is asking for evidence of a claim (unsustainable growth) a cheap shot.

I asked first.

True. But where is the connection to abc. Abc has been widely available for decades. Seems like a non-factor to me.

I have not seen a coherent answer as to why abc will stop this.

Its only immoral when abc is included.

Again why is abc the answer. The connection is pretty nebulous to me.

If you cannot see how growth of our western lifestyle is unsustainable, if you have not realised the amount of degradation, exploitation and pollution occurring in order to support our lifestyles and you think the whole world’s population can join us…then you have no imagination
footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/

popsci.com/environment/article/2012-10/daily-infographic-if-everyone-lived-american-how-many-earths-would-we-need

worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
Poor people with 18 children stay poor. I gave my examples in my last answer. Abc is the only practical answer - if they want the opportunity to better their lives and those of their (fewer) children, they can now be offered that opportunity. They don’t all share your idea of the immorality of sex with abc. Your private life is your affair, as is theirs.
Wanting our lifestyle with its natural consequences is NOT immoral???

 

[davidv]

If you cannot see how growth of our western lifestyle is unsustainable, if you have not realised the amount of degradation, exploitation and pollution occurring in order to support our lifestyles and you think the whole world’s population can join us…then you have no imagination
footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/

popsci.com/environment/article/2012-10/daily-infographic-if-everyone-lived-american-how-many-earths-would-we-need

worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable
Poor people with 18 children stay poor. I gave my examples in my last answer. Abc is the only practical answer - if they want the opportunity to better their lives and those of their (fewer) children, they can now be offered that opportunity. They don’t all share your idea of the immorality of sex with abc. Your private life is your affair, as is theirs.
Wanting our lifestyle with its natural consequences is NOT immoral???

All very interesting.
However it is sorely lacking as a rational (logical) defense of the claim that abc is moral.

 

[Kelt]

All very interesting.
However it is sorely lacking as a rational (logical) defense of the claim that abc is moral.

And there we’ll have to leave it!

 

[skippley]

It has been said here that the only practical answer to avoid having 18 children is birth control. That is false. The only practical and healthy answer is ecological breastfeeding. Among the Inuit Eskimos in Canada, families only had 3 to 4 children due to traditional nursing. It was only when they took up bottle-feeding obtained at the trading posts and shortened lactation that they begin having babies every year. God has a natural plan to space babies without abstinence and it all involves the maternal behaviors of the mother. To have menstruation return within 3 months after childbirth should be the rare exception if you take nature as the norm. To go one, two or even three years without menstruation is normal if the mother is following the Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding. The Church needs to promote this form of natural family planning as it is God’s way. It is healthier for both mother and baby and the research shows the benefits last years after the breastfeeding has ceased.