Girls' education as population control

[RCIAGraduate]

Awhile back in my Sustainability class I learned that increasing education attainment among girls (especially secondary school) had an impact on reducing the number of births women had.

Would such a program within third world countries and perhaps even poor and impoverished communities within the United States be a via and appropriate way to “control” for population growth in accordance with Catholic Social Teaching? Women and girls would be encouraged and promoted to complete High School, if not College or University as well as ample opportunities for vocational training backed up by supportive services. In third world or development countries, special boarding schools could be set up for girls where they can pursue their education without the struggles of poverty (and transportation issues in the rural communities and countryside).

Or does the intention and motives of implicit population control invalidate such policies, and such policies should be pursued with the intention of promoting human dignity and the common good by encouraging girls and women to pursue and maximize their potential.

Have a happy October.

 

[Latinitas]

Awhile back in my Sustainability class I learned that increasing education attainment among girls (especially secondary school) had an impact on reducing the number of births women had.

Would such a program within third world countries and perhaps even poor and impoverished communities within the United States be a via and appropriate way to “control” for population growth in accordance with Catholic Social Teaching?

This is not wrong, unless it were to so elimanate birth as to put the country in danger, or were to encourage unchastity and use of artificial birth control. You have to realize that “birth control”, in the sense of limiting the number of births, is not wrong per se. It’s the means used that the problem lies. Virginity and continence [in the sense of refraining from sexual relations] are highly praised in the Catholic Church, moreso even than marriage. To say that virginity and celibacy are equal to or lower than marriage is in fact heresy (cf. Council of Trent, Session XXIV, Canon X). So, it’s not limiting births that’s the problem. It’s the use of artificial means that render the conjugal act unfruitful with that intent, that’s the problem.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[SuperLuigi]

Awhile back in my Sustainability class I learned that increasing education attainment among girls (especially secondary school) had an impact on reducing the number of births women had.

Would such a program within third world countries and perhaps even poor and impoverished communities within the United States be a via and appropriate way to “control” for population growth in accordance with Catholic Social Teaching? Women and girls would be encouraged and promoted to complete High School, if not College or University as well as ample opportunities for vocational training backed up by supportive services. In third world or development countries, special boarding schools could be set up for girls where they can pursue their education without the struggles of poverty (and transportation issues in the rural communities and countryside).

Or does the intention and motives of implicit population control invalidate such policies, and such policies should be pursued with the intention of promoting human dignity and the common good by encouraging girls and women to pursue and maximize their potential.

Have a happy October.

I doubt a public school “sustainability class” is going to market Catholic values.

The Catholic Church encourages responsible family planning. My wife went to Catholic high school, and they emphasized the girls there had the vocation of “student”, not of marriage or mother.

Also, we don’t have a population control problem in America. If we did, there wouldn’t be any need for immigration.

Overall, I think you need to be careful here. There’s too many people out there, including Catholics, who are looking for that one and popular secularist policy to support (usually it’s so-called gay “marriage”) to impress their friends, colleagues that they may be Catholic, but aren’t so “backwards” after all.

IF that is a motive, well, if you can’t fool me, how will you fool God?

 

[Allegra]

I don’t think we need population control in the US. What we need is a greater emphasis on the importance of family life and parenting skills. That being said, I think it’s a fairly well-documented fact that extending the education of young people causes a delay in starting families. As we well know in the US, if we can get them under a decade of crushing student debt, it works even better. I don’t think that preventing pregnancy is a good reason to go to school though.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

The aim for the US isn’t population control but more so the prevention of teenage pregnancy and early motherhood (as in too early) that still plagues many of our communities especially the inner city and other impoverished communities (not the babies themselves but the dangerous social pathologies that too often correlate like low education attainment, child abuse and neglect and family dsyfunction, etc.).

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

It’s a well Documented fact that teen girls with a Quality Education opens their minds ,
And are less prone to being hoodwinked by over ego males,
With education girls see the oppertunities laid out for them,
Oppertunity to travel / Career paths, while looking at the older generation bound down with a tribe of Anklebiters

 

[JimG]

Nothing wrong with educating women. But the next big problem for the world is going to be depopulation as a result of declining fertility rates. This has already happened throughout most of the western world. Seems like the wrong problem is being addressed.

 

[TK421]

Girls should be educated because it is a good in of itself. They’re human beings - images of Christ - that ought to be nurtured to as close to their full potential as we are capable of giving, and education is one asset (among several) in order to achieve that end. If there is any validity to the idea of it also mitigating growth, it is secondary, and infinitely so, compared to the Divine command to love others as you love yourself.

The vast majority of canonized individuals were given a privileged education, which affected their capacity to affect others.

 

[TK421]

Consider the danger of too readily endorsing this view as a priority. If there is a strong practical value in the education of women for the purpose of curbing population growth, then what happens when there is a need to do the opposite? Should women be publicly encouraged to leave higher education and start churning out infants? Does the education of girls at that point become a liability? You see, the only safe view is the correct view, which is that illuminating the human mind - male or female - is a good in of itself. It is always a worthy cause for its own sake.

If they want to be mothers of large families at an early age, God may call them to that. They might be called to singleness. They might be called to start motherhood much later in life. I think there is enough diversity among the temperaments and life callings of women that there isn’t a great need to worry about it.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Hi TK, you make a strong point there .

I meant to show that there is a strong and viable alternative to contraception and abortion as population control. With that said again you are right, there’s an inherit danger in utilitarianism that ends up viewing humans and individuals as cogs and widgets (perhaps due to its simplicity). In my economics class, I learned that one reason why many economists support borders is due to the assumption that human beings will self-correct falling wages in their recipient countries through emigration - basically people were viewed like fish who can swim from one pool to the other.

Also for Luigi (or do you prefer SuperLuigi)

doubt a public school “sustainability class” is going to market Catholic values.

Well it is a secular school(state university to be exact) but my teachers do mean well. One mentioned how the class was meant to teach the science behind environmental science/sustainability, it isn’t meant to be a class from “activism” in his words. I was also pleasantly surprised that my other teacher didn’t seem to buy into the overpopulation koolaid.

Overall, I think you need to be careful here. There’s too many people out there, including Catholics, who are looking for that one and popular secularist policy to support (usually it’s so-called gay “marriage”) to impress their friends, colleagues that they may be Catholic, but aren’t so “backwards” after all.

I think I get what you’re saying here, like how some people advocate soaking the rich and wealthy with taxes for the disadvantaged and vulnerable but it’s counterproductive because it embitters the rich, may promote an entitlement mentality among the poor and displaces if not replaces the role of communities and civil society in promoting and fulfilling the common and charity.

With that said, I do think there are good ideas out there(such as Americorps running programs to help disadvantaged children through school partnerships with organizations like City Year). For instance, I really support the concept and idea of Home Visiting Programs meant to help struggling families (Allegra you mentioned the need to improve family life and parenting skills for society) as well as the general idea of making social services more personalized.