C
Contarini
Guest
Don’t you think that’s rather cold-blooded? Frankly, I find this unfitting for your namesake and a bit more like the kind of thinking I’d expect from the other side of the Ephel Duath.
Edwin
- Status
Edwin
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
I agree it sounds rather cold blooded, but it brings up the other side of the equation. Humans enter this world, and we leave this world. The population rises as people live longer. Over-population fear mongers could just as easily argue against chlildhood vaccinations, anti-biotics, and other medical advances as those things also contribute to the growing human population. Instead, they pick on the un-born.
Many who fear over-population consider death a “solution” to over-population for the un-born, while they practically expect to achieve immortality through medical advances. They push sex with contraception, and when that sex results in pregnancy–because contraception often fails–many push abortion. *Most also push for *immoral medical treatments, seeking longer life spans for themselves.
As a mom, I try to teach my children to share and take turns. I think the real problem of many who fear over-population is they really just haven’t learned to share or take turns. Most who raise concerns about over-population think they are entitled to live on the earth for as long as they want and have sex as much as they want. They don’t want take responsibility for their sexual actions, they don’t want to ever die, and they won’t let the next generation have its turn. Grow up! Learn to take turns and share the earth with others.
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
I remember hearing we were going to run out of natural gas in the year 2002.I vividly remember as a youngster in the 80s being taught that we would run out (not just have limited supplies, but run out totally) of most minerals and natural resources before the year 2000.
K
kleary
Guest
Great! In 61 years we will no longer have to roll up and count pennies!
Artificial Contraception is not the answer to controlling population. Abstaining from the marital act during the woman’s fertile time is. However the question of overpupulation… you all must remember that we have a Father and now a Brother in Heaven. They are in control- always have been. I am sure they would do something to prevent things so to say. I mean if God the Son can become a human being and raise a man from the dead I am sure He can do something if we really need Him to do it.
With the way the world is going, there will most definitely be no “over population” with the increasing natural disasters, terrorist bombings, diseases such as AIDS, Cancer and what have you. Also, America and other formerly “Christian” countries…- watch out- the muslim nations are dwarfing you in population and overflowing into your borders- soon all will be muslim
, (Artificial contraception is forbidden in Islam as well I believe)But seriously, God designed the Marital Act as he did for specific reasons. If you believe in God, then you cannot use Artificial Contraception.
Ken
K
kleary
Guest
Oh yea,… on a side note here, we are expecting our FOURTH child in March. We were married in 2002. After the third we became serious about using NFP. We even purchased a computer program called “Cycle Sense” to help us.
Well the last time we used that program it showed no ovulation the entire month. The chart however, when you look at it you can see three big M’s on it. When we saw the three M’s on it we immediately knew we were pregnant again and God was showing us through His Mother not to be afraid and to just trust in Him.
So even NFP is not 100 percent effective- God is in control.
Ken
Well the last time we used that program it showed no ovulation the entire month. The chart however, when you look at it you can see three big M’s on it. When we saw the three M’s on it we immediately knew we were pregnant again and God was showing us through His Mother not to be afraid and to just trust in Him.
So even NFP is not 100 percent effective- God is in control.
Ken
F
fellowChristian
Guest
God giving us children as a blessing
**1 Timothy 2:15 **
15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
**Psalm 127:3-5 **
3 Sons are a heritage from the LORD,
children a reward from him.
4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one’s youth.
5 Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their enemies in the gate.
God punishing by not giving children
**Hosea 9:11 **
Who do you choose to listen to God or man?
**1 Timothy 2:15 **
15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
**Psalm 127:3-5 **
3 Sons are a heritage from the LORD,
children a reward from him.
4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are sons born in one’s youth.
5 Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they contend with their enemies in the gate.
God punishing by not giving children
**Hosea 9:11 **
Code:
11As for Ephraim, their glory will fly away like a bird--
No birth, no pregnancy and no conception!
T
tvdxer
Guest
No, I don’t think it would become impractical, simply because of the existence of Natural Family Planning.
T
Teflon93
Guest
Don’t these sort of doom-and-gloom environmental predictions remind you of those who predict Christ’s return in 1988, whoops, make that 2007, whoops make that 2032…ad infinitum?
Environmentalism really is the new apocalyptic religion.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Excellent observation. I was about to say the same thing.
G
GandalfTheWhite
Guest
I think it may sound cold-blooded but it’s a fact. My point was that I believe that in the long run overpopulation is impossible. Either we solve with technology or nature will take care of it.
God created the Earth and it was GOOD. What I described is also part of what God’s creation
Now, if I have a choice between going against God and supporting contraception or accepting the self-regulating system, I will choose the later one.
H
hasikelee
Guest
I don’t know. Frankly, I think it’s a bit weird that you use an excuse of worrying about another baby to justify using artificial contraceptives.Yeah me and the little lady are sex obsessed deviants who laugh at our impending poverty and take the food out of our childrens mouths so we can afford more contraceptives…
Yours is a very judgmental and frankly bizarre response.
Have you researched artificial birth control?
So what happens when your method fails…your post gave the implication that you were unwilling and unable to care for another baby. When the birth control fails, will you pressure your wife to abort?
It just seems sensible that if you really are that scared of another baby and you really are that stretched in resources, that’d you take the truly safe path and not have sex with your wife.
C
Contarini
Guest
No–primarily it rises as more infants live to maturity. Longevity has relatively little to do with it.
If we are talking about abortion, then we have no disagreement. Killing unborn children is certainly not a solution to over-population (or to anything). However, I think it is philosophically problematic to speak about “picking on the unborn” when describing non-abortifacient contraception. You can’t pick on someone who exists only potentially. It’s easy to think backwards–I have a 9-month-old daughter and the thought that my wife and I might have decided not to conceive her is intolerable. But obviously our actions (and not just the use of birth control) prevented the conception of an infinite number of potential human beings. This line of argument just doesn’t work, logically.
This is a classic case of that form of the straw-man fallacy that attacks a weak version of a position instead of a stronger one. There is nothing at all incoherent or inconsistent about using contraception to slow down or reverse population growth, while accepting joyfully the gift of new life when it happens.
Again, you are deliberately using a straw-man argument here. This isn’t the point at all. There is nothing wrong with human beings desiring to live a full life span, and there is certainly nothing wrong with trying to reduce infant mortality. You know quite well that if these “natural regulators” kick in the chief victims will be infants. It is pretty weird that you attack birth control in the name of those potential human beings who might be conceived (Note: I am NOT talking about the unborn who have already been conceived–I entirely agree that these are human beings and not only “potential”), while accepting as natural the return of mass infant mortality, and criticizing those of us who find this horrifying as selfish children who don’t know how to share.
You are demonstrating the weakness of your position by these distortions and straw-man arguments. We are not talking about abortion, in the first place, and we are not just talking about a shortening of the life expectancy of adults. Certainly a person in their thirties (my current age) can expect to live longer now than would have been the case at one time, or than will be the case if overpopulation results in the disasters you so complacently anticipate. But the increased life expectancy of the modern world derives primarily from the decline of infant mortality, and of course this is far more significant in terms of population growth, since the more infants life to maturity the more people will go on to have children themselves (a person living to 80 or 90 instead of 60 or 70 is going to have no effect on population growth). I don’t see how you can get around this.
Edwin
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
longevity* n* 1 a: a long duration of individual life.
To my way of thinking, Infants living to maturity relates to long duration of life, as if those who die as infants didn’t live very long. If more people live longer, then there are more people alive on the earth–thus the population increases. I don’t have a problem with the earth’s population increasing, but some people do.
I am glad that you and I both agree that abortion is wrong. Those who push contraception for population control rarely distinguish between the various methods of contraception. Many, if not most of them, actively support abortion.
I believe that society’s acceptance of contraception has a great deal to do with its of abortion. I’m repeating myself from another post on another thread, but the court ruling that over-turned a state law that banned abortion (Griswold v. Connecticut) set the legal precidence sited by the US Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.
I was trying to demonstrate the inconsistency of the other side. No, there is nothing wrong with people wanting to life long, healthy lives; however, there is something wrong about immoral methods that some use to try to achieve this, i.e. destroying human embryos in effort to achieve it. Reducing infant mortality is also noble and good. (I’d write more, but I have hungry children of my own to feed. Gotta go.)
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Oops
major typo–I meant to say Griswold v. Connecticut overturned a state law that banned contraception, (not abortion.) That case regarding contraception set precedent for the “right to privacy” which the courts later sited in Roe v Wade legalizing abortion. Looking at how abortion became legal in the US, there is a direct connection between contraception and abortion.
L
lukewarm
Guest
Uhhh of course not… Don’t be absurd, stop equating using a condom to murdering a baby. Man the liberties and insults some of you “die hard” Catholics have levied at me leaves me truly amazed.
I’ll have sex with my wife, because she’s my wife, I’m not going to demand celibacy for two or three years until our financial picture looks more rosey, that’s ridiculous.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Who said anything about celibacy. I’ll have sex with my wife, because she’s my wife, and put my faith in God that if He blesses us with children, he will also provide.
C
Contarini
Guest
LOL! Sorry. My point was that you were talking about adults wanting to live as long as possible, and this is what I had in mind in speaking of “longevity.” Living 80 years instead of, say, 60. I have a chip on my shoulder about this because when I have taught history I have found that students routinely misinterpret statistics about life expectancy to mean that anyone who lived past 30 was old in the ancient/medieval world and that almost no one ever lived into their 70s. Infant mortality and the length of time an adult could reasonably expect to live are two quite separate issues.
Because it established a “right to privacy.” You could make the opposite argument, in fact–that the confusion between abortion and contraception causes people to see both as an issue of sexual morality vs. the right to privacy, ignoring the issue of human life.
I have very mixed feelings about the contraception issue. I think the Catholic understanding of the nature of sexuality is a powerful one, and I essentially agree with it. I also think that there’s something to the argument that if people see children as an unwanted byproduct of sex, this will lead them to resort to abortion if contraception doesn’t work. At the same time, practically speaking it does seem to be counterproductive to ban non-abortifacient contraceptives if our main goal is to reduce abortions, since obviously people who never get pregnant will never have abortions. However, that really isn’t my point here, which is simply that non-abortifacient contraception clearly is not taking human life and thus cannot be set against the horrors of disease, famine, etc.
Certainly. But again, this is a straw man.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I have forgotten who, but someone did recommend temporary celibacy to lukewarm as a solution to the problem of being unable to provide for more children.
Edwin
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Demonstrates a lack of faith, IMO. Just my opinion though.
- Status