po18guy
Well-known member
Well, sin is sin. Contraception is a sin. Muslims do not come from a culture of contraception. It is that culture that we fight against.
- Status
S
sidbrown
Guest
I don;t think that NFP is a sin in Catholicism, is it?
H
Hesychios
Guest
It would depend upon the underlying intention of the practice, supposedly.
S
sidbrown
Guest
I see you are listed as being in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Is NFP a sin in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Say for example, a married couple who are professionals and want to advance their careers and so they choose to not have any children for a few years until they are on their feet professionally. Would they be allowed (in your church) to use either NFP or artificial birth control in that case? Or take the example of a married couple with three children and the family is at the poverty level financially.
In any event, I don;t see either Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics having families that are as large as some of the Muslim families in my area. Of course there are exceptions to this, but the last time I checked, birth control was fairly widespread in Orthodox countries such as Russia for example.
H
Hesychios
Guest
One can not speak in generalities. It is a pastoral matter, between the believer and his/her spiritual director.
I think that you touched upon two major concerns.
For instance, there are the sins of greed, gluttony, avarice and pride, and to use any method (including NFP/sympto-thermal) to prevent a pregnancy just so one can augment his posessions or enhance one’s prestige in the community would probably be considered a serious deviation in thinking and values which the spiritual director would see straightaway.
On the other hand, there may be basic survival situations. I just saw a television report about a village in the Philippines that has been flooded for months with no signs of relief, and the community is impoverished. In places like that basic medical care is practically non-existent, malnutrition and infant mortality are high and all kind of diseases plague the community. It is easy to see how one might wish to control the number of births, and surely abstinence from sex would be the method of first choice.
S
sidbrown
Guest
OK, this is the Orthodox way of approaching an issue.
Does endorsing global warming necessarily involve population control as was brought up earlier? Perhaps it will. This is a point to keep in mind for those who believe that global warming is real and caused by humans. There could be a hidden environmental agenda on the part of those who are endorsing programs to limit global warming. Of course, I think that it has been shown that there is a not so hidden agenda on the part of some of the global warming skeptics who are taking money form Big Oil.
S
spn82756
Guest
…and AGCC proponents who are making money from major polluters. Please don’t ask for the list. Examples have been provided in this and other threads dealing with the same topic. I forgot…there’s selective reading going on.
S
spn82756
Guest
I’m not sure if reading about your “scientists” is something you’re interested in…but may I refer you to post 51?
S
spn82756
Guest
From www.telegraph.co.uk
**'Contraception cheapest way to **
combat climate change’
Contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, according to research by the London School of Economics.
By Richard Pindar
Published: 12:05PM BST 09 Sep 2009
“Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says.
The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.
If these basic family planning needs were met, 34 gigatons (billion tonnes) of CO2 would be saved – equivalent to nearly 6 times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total.
Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust at the LSE, said: “It’s always been obviously that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down as we want, while the population keeps shooting up.”
UN data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 million.
The research is published on the day that the Government’s climate change advisers, the Climate Change Committee, warned households and industry that a planned 80 per cent reduction in emissions are likely to prove insufficient.”
D
dvdjs
Guest
From the OP:
Another idea in the OP, that a collection of 30,000 signatures somehow discredits “claims that there is a so-called world wide consensus on the climate issue…”, also needs to be scrutinized.
The National Science Foundation (nsf.gov) has been tracking, for many decades, the number of degrees granted in science and engineering in the US. From their data, one can conservatively infer that this group of 30,000 represent less than 0.5% of those qualified to sign the petition.
To some, 30,000 may seem like an awesome number, but it is a * tiny* minority of those eligible to sign the petition. Even without taking into account the lack of expertise among the petition signers, one must realize that their number is so small that it provides no basis whatsoever for refuting the idea that there is consensus within this scientific community.
Sidbrown, Calliso, and others have debunked the idea in the OP that the petition signers are “experts who have studies” the science of climate change.
Another idea in the OP, that a collection of 30,000 signatures somehow discredits “claims that there is a so-called world wide consensus on the climate issue…”, also needs to be scrutinized.
The National Science Foundation (nsf.gov) has been tracking, for many decades, the number of degrees granted in science and engineering in the US. From their data, one can conservatively infer that this group of 30,000 represent less than 0.5% of those qualified to sign the petition.
To some, 30,000 may seem like an awesome number, but it is a * tiny* minority of those eligible to sign the petition. Even without taking into account the lack of expertise among the petition signers, one must realize that their number is so small that it provides no basis whatsoever for refuting the idea that there is consensus within this scientific community.
po18guy
Well-known member
Every global warming premise that blames man, and nearly every one does, eventually gets back to population control. Since man is the enemy, man must be limited in his ability to damage mother earth. That is always proposed via population control. GW/CC is just the latest ruse used in favor of population control. Remember ZPG? The have-nots are nearly always perceived as a threat to the haves - at least, those who have been “educated” at mainstream institutions.
S
spn82756
Guest
You’re certainly echoing some of the concerns of previous posts. As Stalin said about his enemies…
NO MAN, NO PROBLEM.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I agree with this post completely.
J
JRPO
Guest
If anyone in the left wing media had the Intestinal Fortitude to give this Petition the Publicity it deserves they know they would completely undo their left wing agenda because no doubt many of the silent majority would come out and support the fact that the signatories are not too far off the mark.
Any one of any standing in the community knows that with any partition there are many more who are of the same view.
H
Hesychios
Guest
If you are asking my opinion I say no.
It probably will involve behavioral changes for most of us.
In other words, if the problem is littering (for example), the solution is not to get rid of people, the solution is to stop littering. Excessive CO2 emissions are basically litter.
We have seen this idea of population control before. It is nothing new. Usually it is coupled with hate in some way, like when foreign families move into the area, it’s usually “there are too many of them”.
I think that the people who advocate population control are generally manifesting a type of selfishness. Sure, they seem enlightened, they know all about ozone layers, migratory birds, nutrition and wellness. And they know that if we share this planet with billions of additional people there will be scarcity and (God forbid!) sacrifice. So they want the rest of the world to stop making babies. After all, they have to put junior through med school and make payments on the new SUV.
If we as a community are battling against resource scarcity and climate degradation, it’s easy to think someone else needs to take it on the chin. In fact, we all do, the hole isn’t only on your side of the boat, no matter where the hole is, we all have to bail.
po18guy
Well-known member
The problem is that every program that has been put forth by a governmental or quasi-governmental agency either focuses on, or is based on population control. As a practical matter, the two ideas will not be separated.
J
JRPO
Guest
Interesting questions. We have an authority in our beautiful city of Perth call the waters and river commision. They do a very good job of keeping an eye on our water ways. The only realproblem that seems to come up is algi blooms in the summer time but the heavy winter rains always seem to solve that problem. Our beautiful Swan River as it is named is the oldest river in the world(Australia is a very old Land with no Volcanoes the last one run out of puff millions of years ago) its currently in very good shape but over alarmist greenies would probably try and tell you different.
There lives in our city a very well know scientist and former Green activist named Joanne Nova she like me use to believe all the alarmist nonsense coming from the left. But, as you do once you get a grip on reality you no longer take any notice of the over exagerated arrogance.
Check out joannenova.com.au/ you might learn something.
As far as I know, Yes, Mary can bless.
the Schoenstatt movement is all over the world and in various locations in the United States. Check them out on the net. Pay them a visit you’ll have your question answered theologically I’m sure.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I would think we should, but it seems JRPO doesn’t think so.
You’ve made similar claims earlier in the thread. You’ve even said that “[t]he entire world now seems to be calling the data into question.” I am skeptical of your claims, but since you have merely made claims, there is little to discuss. Except perhaps this:
I think that the scientific community is handling issues 1 and 2. Scrutiny by politicos or pundits will add nothing.
Your third point, however, is more tricky. Do we have the luxury of waiting for a complete and irrefutable picture of what is happening? Perhaps not. Perhaps by the time that we obtain that irrefutable picture, it may be too late to act. (Edward Teller, interestingly enough, thinks that there will be plenty of time to solve any problems simply by nuking a lot of matter launched into space to generate a cooling effect. )
That situation is not so unusual; we often, in fact, typically, need to make policy decisions on the basis of less than optimal information. I am not an expert on the science of climate change, but my understanding from experts that I know is that the scientific data raise the prospect of certain catastrophic scenarios with a sufficient degree of probability that it prudent for policy-makers to take steps to ensure against these worst case scenarios. The policy-making involves very difficult analysis and trade-offs - in part because of the current limits of the scientific data and analysis. There is with plenty of room for discussion and disagreement in the realm of policy-making. But agreement on the science is strong.
D
dvdjs
Guest
And Merry Christmas to you too…
- Status