Overpopulation and the right to have children

[SonSearcher]

I really don’t know whether it is or isn’t.

I don’t know. Maybe when parent egg cells undergo meiosis. Maybe when the fetus has a functioning brain. Maybe when it is born. maybe when it is baptised. I really have no idea, but conception is just as arbitrary as any of these other points (except baptism; that actually contains a spiritual component. not to say that I think that Babies are ensouled then, just that it is an intrigueing possibility).

hmm. good point…

…which is completely nuetralized by this other good point. Because God is outside time, he knew us before our parents were concieved. This bible quote says nothing about when we become ensouled.

I want to make clear, however, that I am not advocating abortion in case the world become overpopulated. It is possible that Fetuses are human beings, and we don’t want to run the risk of killing anyone. Rather, I am advocating a course of action that may seem to some to be even more radical: In the case of overpopulation, people should be sterilized after a couple has a particular number of children. That’s all people, InjesusItrust, not just the poor.

aaand here come the nazi references.

By the way. Are you sure you are Catholic?

 

[zro_x]

At the moment of conception life begins. No other moment can define life any further.

conception is just as arbitrary as any other point that I mentioned. So the DNA is formed and the baby can start to develop. why in the world would God chose to put a soul in a human just because of a particular molecular arrangement?

if you argue otherwise you are doing the devil’s bidding.

I’m not doing the devil’s bidding, I’m challenging the assumptions made about abortion. I think the devil’s bidding is that we stay closed-minded and not consider and question articles of faith. We are called to know God, and we can’t do that if we just swallow whatever the church tells us unquestioningly. So even if I’m wrong, I’m still not doing evil. If I practiced abortion, on the other hand, then I could be doing a grave evil.

If we start to define life beginning at certain points (but different) then it becomes subjective and that is where there is all this gray area.

It seems to me that it already is a subjective gray area.

 

[zro_x]

By the way. Are you sure you are Catholic?

Quite sure. Being Catholic requires me to blindly follow the direction of the church in my actions, but not my intellect. We can and should investigate the reasoning behind the Catholic taboo against abortion and contraception. Indeed, we are called to investigate the reasons for every Catholic law.

 

[mymamamary]

Quite sure. Being Catholic requires me to blindly follow the direction of the church in my actions, but not my intellect. We can and should investigate the reasoning behind the Catholic taboo against abortion and contraception. Indeed, we are called to investigate the reasons for every Catholic law.

**Yes, we are allowed to submit the Churchs Law to our Faith and process of Logic, yet when someone rebels when all the evidence is provided au contraire, then we have a problem of pride. The Catholic Taboo concering abortion and contraception is the same Taboo that does not allow killing, stealing, adultery, rape etc.

Unless of course, we would like to suspend the laws of morals and ethics and just have one big free-for-all. I would opitimistically give you maybe 3 weeks before the human race would destroy itself completley. **

 

[zro_x]

Yes, we are allowed to submit the Churchs Law to our Faith and process of Logic, yet when someone rebels when all the evidence is provided au contraire, then we have a problem of pride.

agreed. It should be mentioned, though, that it has to be quality evidence.

The Catholic Taboo concering abortion and contraception is the same Taboo that does not allow killing, stealing, adultery, rape etc.

And the Catholic church has good reasons for all of these taboos. It probably has a good reason for the taboo against abortion and contraception too, but if so, I haven’t found it.

Unless of course, we would like to suspend the laws of morals and ethics and just have one big free-for-all. I would opitimistically give you maybe 3 weeks before the human race would destroy itself completley.

if that long.

 

[GEddie]

**Yes, we are allowed to submit the Churchs Law to our Faith and process of Logic, yet when someone rebels when all the evidence is provided au contraire, then we have a problem of pride. The Catholic Taboo concering abortion and contraception is the same Taboo that does not allow killing, stealing, adultery, rape etc.

Unless of course, we would like to suspend the laws of morals and ethics and just have one big free-for-all. I would opitimistically give you maybe 3 weeks before the human race would destroy itself completley. **

No, I doubt it would be destroyed. It would, however, meltdown to the point that overpopulation would never again be a concern.

We are no longer those hardy beings who created the population boom of the 1800s. Ten generations of rampant sin and it’s sequelae have seen to that.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[tonyrey]

Good point about the moving of populations. I of course am only intending to disagree with the posters that are arguing for contraception and abortion as a means to “control population.”

Further though I would be afraid of a government that has the power to move people. Think about the Soviet Union or even the US and the Japanese population during WWII.

It is happening to the poor in London right now. As a direct result of government policy the local councils are compelling them to move to towns where they cannot find work…

 

[tonyrey]

What is the solution when many individuals fail to take responsibility?

If we see people suffering or likely to suffer because others are negligent we have to act as well as pray…

 

[GEddie]

It is happening to the poor in London right now. As a direct result of government policy the local councils are compelling them to move to towns where they cannot find work…

Did they have jobs in London?

This sounds like the extension of what was described in Dickens, e.g. Nothing new.

ICXC NIKA

 

[WmJackP]

There is no overpopulation problem. Don’t believe the lie.

I believe you failed to capture the essence of the argument for over population. The statement of whether we are over populated is neither a lie nor a truth. It is a conclusion drawn from fact. The facts are that there is grinding poverty, disease, famine, wars and inhumane conditions for most of the populations throughout the third world, and, In the developed countries there is unprecedented societal dysfunction, increased crime, violence, and generalized breakdown of civil institutions. There is also a shift in behavior of the climate and environmental changes on a significant scale. It is also a fact that there are nearly 7 billion people on the planet—something this planet has never seen before, just as these conditions I have described have never been witnessed before— —and there are some who persuasively argue that there is a relationship between these conditions and the planet’s exploding population.

You may disagree, if you like, with the conclusion. But it is no lie, and, you disrespect manygifted people who have arrived at this conclusion by calling them liars.

 

[mymamamary]

agreed. It should be mentioned, though, that it has to be quality evidence.

And the Catholic church has good reasons for all of these taboos. It probably has a good reason for the taboo against abortion and contraception too, but if so, I haven’t found it.

if that long.

The Church has given evidence and has spoken about it. It (abortion) is the murder of an unborn human being. Its not rocket science. Thou Shalt not Kill, means exactly that, Thou Shalt not kill.

 

[SonSearcher]

The Church has given evidence and has spoken about it. It (abortion) is the murder of an unborn human being. Its not rocket science. Thou Shalt not Kill, means exactly that, Thou Shalt not kill.

Good luck with that one. He is a tough nut to crack.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I believe you failed to capture the essence of the argument for over population. The statement of whether we are over populated is neither a lie nor a truth. It is a conclusion drawn from fact. The facts are that there is grinding poverty, disease, famine, wars and inhumane conditions for most of the populations throughout the third world, and, In the developed countries there is unprecedented societal dysfunction, increased crime, violence, and generalized breakdown of civil institutions. There is also a shift in behavior of the climate and environmental changes on a significant scale. It is also a fact that there are nearly 7 billion people on the planet—something this planet has never seen before, just as these conditions I have described have never been witnessed before— —and there are some who persuasively argue that there is a relationship between these conditions and the planet’s exploding population.

You may disagree, if you like, with the conclusion. But it is no lie, and, you disrespect manygifted people who have arrived at this conclusion by calling them liars.

These facts are financed by the descendants of the same group of modern aristocrats who wanted to eliminate the rabble through eugenics a few years ago. They are a blight on the world and den of thieves.

Do you really expect someone arguing to the contrary will even get positive media spin?

 

[zro_x]

The Church has given evidence

great! but until I see that evidence and see for myself that it actually stands close scrutiny, I’m still going to call the church’s pro-life teaching into question.

and has spoken about it. It (abortion) is the murder of an unborn human being.

if the only evidence (empirical or philosophical) the church has is that it declares, fallibly, that human life becomes ensouled at conception, i’m strongly inclined to doubt it. hopefully, they have better evidence than that.

Its not rocket science. Thou Shalt not Kill, means exactly that, Thou Shalt not kill.

It’s a lot more complicated than “thy shalt not kill”. It may not be rocket science, but it isn’t exactly the ABC’s either. the Catholic church interprets this commandment as

“Thy shalt not kill, unless I command you to genocide another nation, you have reason for just war, you are defending yourself, or you are hunting animals. You are also allowed to kill cells in your own body, if necessary for your health. If none of these exceptions are in place, than not only shall you not kill, but you shall also seek to preserve as much human biological life as possible within my laws, no matter the secular consequences. In addition, if you are called to marriage, thy shalt not attempt to artificially restrict my authority, right, and capacity to co-create more human life with you. Also note that this commandment is not restricted to physical murder, but that anger at your brother counts as murder in your heart. Please read the fine print in section 491 subsection 3 article B paragraph A, and sign here, here, and here.”

I don’t mean to sound offensive or to demean God. I’m just trying to emphasize that the fifth commandment is a lot more complex than most give it credit for.

Good luck with that one. He is a tough nut to crack.

umm, thanks, I think?

 

[ericc]

great! but until I see that evidence and see for myself that it actually stands close scrutiny, I’m still going to call the church’s pro-life teaching into question.

if the only evidence (empirical or philosophical) the church has is that it declares, fallibly, that human life becomes ensouled at conception, i’m strongly inclined to doubt it. hopefully, they have better evidence than that.

It’s a lot more complicated than “thy shalt not kill”. It may not be rocket science, but it isn’t exactly the ABC’s either. the Catholic church interprets this commandment as

“Thy shalt not kill, unless I command you to genocide another nation, you have reason for just war, you are defending yourself, or you are hunting animals. You are also allowed to kill cells in your own body, if necessary for your health. If none of these exceptions are in place, than not only shall you not kill, but you shall also seek to preserve as much human biological life as possible within my laws, no matter the secular consequences. In addition, if you are called to marriage, thy shalt not attempt to artificially restrict my authority, right, and capacity to co-create more human life with you. Also note that this commandment is not restricted to physical murder, but that anger at your brother counts as murder in your heart. Please read the fine print in section 491 subsection 3 article B paragraph A, and sign here, here, and here.”

I don’t mean to sound offensive or to demean God. I’m just trying to emphasize that the fifth commandment is a lot more complex than most give it credit for.

umm, thanks, I think?

1 Timothy 3:15 The Catholic Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth
Matthew 18:15-20 Church is the final stop.

So even if you have a personal disagreement in your opinions vs the Church, being Catholic requires obedience to the Church’s teaching. Do not end up like the Reformation chaps. Church has decided that life begins at conception and not at other time periods.

Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts, you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.

Won’t you agree “knitting” began at conception? Abortion is to destroy God’s knitting.

 

[zro_x]

1 Timothy 3:15 The Catholic Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth
Matthew 18:15-20 Church is the final stop.

So even if you have a personal disagreement in your opinions vs the Church, being Catholic requires obedience to the Church’s teaching. Do not end up like the Reformation chaps. Church has decided that life begins at conception and not at other time periods.

obedience, yes. but blindly following intellectually, no. As I’ve said, we are called to know God, and one way to do this is to critically investigate the teachings of the church… especially if they could be in error.

Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts, you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.

Won’t you agree “knitting” began at conception? Abortion is to destroy God’s knitting.

knitting began when the first self-replicating molecule billions of years ago formed. You can’t draw a line at conception, since you could say God was knitting you when he formed gametes with particular chromosomes in your parents, and the process of making these chromosomes, and the process of making your parents, and so on.

even if you do interpret this bible passage to mean that God starts knitting in the womb, it would seem to mean that ensoulment is a process. Conception is when a human being would become a person to the smallest of fractions, and his personhood would increase until birth. I’m pretty sure this idea is rejected by the church at large.

Quite frankly, I’m amazed that no one has come up with sources to multiple documents showing how the pro-life movement is an infallible dogma of the church. I expected that long before now… is it possible that there is no infallible dogma on this subject?

 

[jonathan_hili]

1. Places that aren’t densely populated are often so for a reason; those square miles are either unsuitable for settlement or needed for forest, farmland, etc. Moving people to these areas would make matters worse. Dense population is not a priori a bad thing; rents are high at NYC BECAUSE people want to live there.
2. I think we need to define “population control”. To me, this means a coercive scheme as implemented in the PRC. I don’t think anyone on the thread really wants that. Nor can it be squared with Church teaching, IIUC.

ICXC NIKA

True, GEddie, I’m actually in China at the moment and there are lots of things that ain’t pretty. By “population control” I guess I meant more a scientific approach to population growth, perhaps “population management”? Being scientific, it should also be ethical too.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Good point about the moving of populations. I of course am only intending to disagree with the posters that are arguing for contraception and abortion as a means to “control population.”

Further though I would be afraid of a government that has the power to move people. Think about the Soviet Union or even the US and the Japanese population during WWII.

Yeah, so would I! However, sometimes it has to be done (e.g. evacuating people from Chernobyl, though I believe, a good many chose to stay regardless of the dangers) but yes, on the whole, I’m pretty scared of a government that forcibly moves people too.

 

[RobbyS]

I have heard that educating girls and women is effective in reducing the size of families.

I do believe that we have an overpopulation problem. The world has finite resources and we are now at 7 billion people.

Even without birth control, women are having fewer children. Getting women pregnant is not as easy as some think. They do have measure of avoiding pregnancy just by act of will.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The teachings of the church that are subject to fallibility have been wrong before. Limbo and Anslem’s “Chain of being” are two examples.

Oh, its binding on Catholics all right. That is to say, every Catholic should act on current church teaching. However, if that teaching is subject to fallibility, we should question it even as we follow it.

I think we need to distinguish between the thoughts of individual theologians (for example, Augustine on Limbo) and the teaching of the ordinary magisterium. You cannot, for instance, evidence a consistent, universal teaching on Limbo throughout the Church’s history, while you can do so on abortion. As for being subject to fallibility, the universal ordinary magisterium is not and is itself the basis of papal infallibility (for instance, before the Assumption was declared as a dogma of faith, it was part of this ordinary magisterium), and secondly, even if it were, it would be the height of arrogance for any individual Catholic to believe they are right when consistent Church witness is against them, as is the natural moral law.

Going back to the first point, though, I think it’s dangerous to feel obliged to follow the Church’s teaching only when something has been infallibly pronounced. If so, you might as well chuck out your Sunday obligation (which was never set as law at any Church Council to my knowledge) and a whole host of things. Furthermore, you could claim credence for all sorts of beliefs in the faith, for example, that Jesus was married and had children, since it has never been infallibly pronounced that he did not.