Birthrates Help Keep Filipinos in Poverty

[AgnosTheist]

The second article is a case study on actual countries not paper! Why not try reading. You say you want reason and not religion and you are very dismissive when someone provides you with an actual argument. It is ironic how you have provided no support for you opinions other than more opinions.

its just a case study. its not working yet.

 

[urban-hermit]

…the threat posed by world overpopulation received considerable attention. Catholicism was perceived as opposed to birth control and therefore as a particular threat. This was based on the notion that the only method of birth control approved by the church–natural family planning–is unreliable, unacceptable, and ineffective. …

… Increasingly studies show that rates equivalent to those with other contraceptive methods are readily achieved in the developed and developing worlds. Indeed, a study of 19,843 poor women in India had a pregnancy rate approaching zero. Natural family planning is cheap, effective, without side effects, and may be particularly acceptable to the efficacious among people in areas of poverty.

SOURCE:
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678728

The golden rule dictates that we all must control our sexual urges, before marriage but also within marriage. Artificial Birth Control says: “no you don’t! Just take this pill…”. In any population which uses it, ABC is conducive to fornication, adultery and divorce, not to mention abortion and health side effects for women in the countries in which it has become prevalent. No man or woman wants to experience these things in family life because these things do not lead to greater happiness.

We all want people to be happier, yet we must look beyond just material poverty, and avoid offering apparent solutions to poverty which end up being even worse than the original problem.

 

[urban-hermit]

Bottom line-- I don’t think birth control is the answer to poverty.

If it was, I think poor people would have figured this out.

They’re poor, not stupid.

 

[mmyers]

its just a case study. its not working yet.

READ IT! If that is too hard look at the first table. It is about the years 1950-1983. How is that not working yet? Where were you educated that you cannot read a simple argument put forth by respected economists. Do you know what a case study is? I must laugh if you really think that you are using the reason that God gave you.

 

[tomarin]

because the social nature is encrypted into your genes. unless you are clinically psychotic, you would crave social approval.

you know, this doesn’t really work either because if morality is derived from society, then what happens when a society has a widespread practice that is immoral, like slavery in the 19th century US or female infanticide in china? if there is no external moral authority then there is no basis to criticize society as immoral. then everything a society does at any given moment has to be accepted as “moral”, and that obviously isn’t the case.

so when you say “is it moral to prevent people with too many children from contracepting” it doesn’t make any sense. by definition a skeptic is in no position to make a moral argument. you can make a utilitarian one – which is what the article does. but utilitarian arguments are often in conflict with moral arguments, a grotesque example being jonathan swift’s “modest proposal”, where he facetiously suggests the irish should eat their children when food is scarce due to famine (this is from a time before modern contraception obviously).

 

[ralphinal]

Agnos,
Is it possible that the lack of high paying industrial jobs, little or no education, low mineral wealth compaired to some other nations, and a history of colonial opression which lead into a group of corrupt and ineffective leaders may have more to do with it? None of those things have squat to do with birthcontrol.

 

[estesbob]

READ IT! If that is too hard look at the first table. It is about the years 1950-1983. How is that not working yet? Where were you educated that you cannot read a simple argument put forth by respected economists. Do you know what a case study is? I must laugh if you really think that you are using the reason that God gave you.

His original cliam was that the Churches prohibition on Contraception was the cause of poverty in the Phillipines He has been shown that the Phillipines is 62nd in terms of birthrate and none of the countries above them are a predominately catholic country or prohibits contraception. his thesis is invalid from the start.

 

[AgnosTheist]

READ IT!

where in www.cato.org ?

 

[AgnosTheist]

you know, this doesn’t really work either because if morality is derived from society, then what happens when a society has a widespread practice that is immoral, like slavery in the 19th century US or female infanticide in china?

the society cures its own ills. its the secular society that killed slavery, not the catholic church.

so when you say “is it moral to prevent people with too many children from contracepting”

thats not my question. i dont believe in using force. my question is for the couple itself: is it moral to have a baby if you cant afford to raise it or give it a good life?

by definition a skeptic is in no position to make a moral argument.

what definition?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Agnos,
Is it possible that the lack of high paying industrial jobs, little or no education, low mineral wealth compaired to some other nations, and a history of colonial opression which lead into a group of corrupt and ineffective leaders may have more to do with it?

yes.

None of those things have squat to do with birthcontrol.

climbing down the stairs is a lot easier than going back up. same thing with poverty. its easier to get poor than to reverse it. reversing it requires more sacrifices. and part of that sacrifice is to plan your family. limit your kids.

 

[AgnosTheist]

His original cliam was that the Churches prohibition on Contraception was the cause of poverty in the Phillipines

read the title. it “HELPS”. its PART of the blame. not the whole of it.

 

[estesbob]

read the title. it “HELPS”. its PART of the blame. not the whole of it.

You said:

Thats the philippine government submitting to Catholic Sharia law. Instead of doing the best for the people by educating & financing birth-control, while the country is struggling with poverty.

That statement has been shown to be categorically false.

 

[AgnosTheist]

^ That statement doesnt mean that I’m putting the whole blame on birthrates or the CC. No I dont. For me its just part of the roadblock to prosperity.

 

[tomarin]

the society cures its own ills. its the secular society that killed slavery, not the catholic church.

i picked those two examples because they show that there is nothing intrinsically moral about social norms. we can quibble about the details, but i’d much prefer getting my larger point across, which is that in order to say “this is wrong” to a slaveowner, you have to have some external moral authority to appeal to as a standard. otherwise why should the slaveowner accept your opinion as morally binding? his peers are all owning slaves too, so there’s no point in appealing to society’s norms.

thats not my question. i dont believe in using force. my question is for the couple itself: is it moral to have a baby if you cant afford to raise it or give it a good life?

who said anything about force? also, i don’t see any difference between your rewording above and what i paraphrased; you’re still appealing to morality even though you don’t believe in a supreme moral authority. which, i’m saying, doesn’t make sense.

what definition?

of skeptic? how about “a person who doubts the existence of god, or who doubts his active presence in the world”.

 

[estesbob]

^ That statement doesnt mean that I’m putting the whole blame on birthrates or the CC. No I dont. For me its just part of the roadblock to prosperity.

Since it has been shown that the Churchs ban on contraception is not the cause of the birthrate(relatively low when compared to the rest of the world) I assume you are retracting you claim that Catholic Sharia law is to blame?

 

[AgnosTheist]

^ Im still waiting for you to actually show something specific. An obscure list doesnt prove anything.

Show something that will beat this report:

*Contraception 'key to poverty trap’
Government spending on birth control and women’s health makes developing countries richer, the United Nations says. *

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2536431.stm

.

 

[estesbob]

^ Im still waiting for you to actually show something specific. An obscure list doesnt prove anything.

Show something that will beat this report:

Contraception 'key to poverty trap’

Government spending on birth control and women’s health makes developing countries richer, the United Nations says.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2536431.stm

An obscure list? If you have something to dispute the birth rate list I posted do so. if not just admit you were wrong and move on.

 

[ralphinal]

yes.

climbing down the stairs is a lot easier than going back up. same thing with poverty. its easier to get poor than to reverse it. reversing it requires more sacrifices. and part of that sacrifice is to plan your family. limit your kids.

Then let us go backwards, shall we?

If they somehow limit all families to 2-3 children, no more, based on economic ability to support them, meaning some will be allowed only one, and some none, then they can climb out of poverty, right?

With a lower birth rate, they can modernize the industry, attracting new jobs. They can better educate people. They can increase the mineral wealth of the nation. They can install a better government that can help the economy improve.

Nope. Now, the idea that children are a drain on the family economy is not without truth. Children are costly. But, not having them will not increase what people make or what kind of job they have.

 

[AgnosTheist]

you have to have some external moral authority to appeal to as a standard.

the secular government is an effective authority on morality.

of skeptic? how about “a person who doubts the existence of god, or who doubts his active presence in the world”.

& how does that definition disqualify the skeptic from making a moral judgement?

 

[AgnosTheist]

An obscure list? If you have something to dispute the birth rate list I posted do so. if not just admit you were wrong and move on.

Its your personal conclusions based on a list in wikipedia versus the U.N…