Overpopulation and the right to have children

[Jade17]

Whatever the limit is, we aren’t seeing it.

Do we have to see it first before we do something about it?

The Ogallala aquifer in the US expands from the very southern tip of South Dakota to Texas. Part of this aquifer are expected to dry up in 20 years, affecting ranchers in Texas, New Mexico, Kansas and Oklahoma. They (quite literally) may not have access to an aquifer, and will have to truck water in. Do we have to see it used up before we do something about it? Let people lose their land and livelihood?

On a much larger scale, do we see problems with increasing birth rates and depleting resources in developing countries and let it continue? I think it is better to implement a strong sex education program with access to birth control than to bring more people into a potential environment of disease and starvation. Why do we have to “see” it first?

 

[Azygos]

There is no such thing as Overpopulation… That myth was exploded ages ago and some say that the world could easily handle a population of 40 billion. Check out the link below that destroys the Myth of Overpopulation.

simplyshrug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63:the-overpopulation-myth&catid=31:general&Itemid=50%29

 

[InJesusItrust]

Look, to help the poor you are presented with two options: 1) lop off their heads so there are less of them; 2) give away your excess wealth. Those who love wealth will always argue for the former. They tend to own big organization, like the media or the United Nations. Overpopulation is an appeal to our greed: better we lop off heads than lose our living standards. Those with billions, if not trillions, are playing people like a fiddle.

 

[jonathan_hili]

While many of you have some great replies to the question of an overpopulation problem, I think it would be more prudent to discuss how such a problem could be theologically and morally confronted in ways harmonious with Catholic teaching, rather than simply state that there is no problem. Why? Well, firstly, it is certainly a live possibility that in the future (near or distant) there could be an overpopulation problem and it’s better to be prepared for these kinds of issues, and, secondly, it would at least give us a viable Catholic response to those who do believe there is a population problem. More effort should be spent considering what to do rather than simply denying.

 

[InJesusItrust]

While many of you have some great replies to the question of an overpopulation problem, I think it would be more prudent to discuss how such a problem could be theologically and morally confronted in ways harmonious with Catholic teaching, rather than simply state that there is no problem. Why? Well, firstly, it is certainly a live possibility that in the future (near or distant) there could be an overpopulation problem and it’s better to be prepared for these kinds of issues, and, secondly, it would at least give us a viable Catholic response to those who do believe there is a population problem. More effort should be spent considering what to do rather than simply denying.

By not raising issue on the question begging fallacy of overpopulation we are forced into needless corner. Anyone who has though hard about it would link it to Malthus, Darwin and Eugenics. Population control in practice is politically correct eugenics.

eu·gen·ics   [yoo-jen-iks] Show IPA
noun (used with a singular verb)
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

dictionary.reference.com/etymology/eugenics

Heck we can call it the outcome of the contraceptive mentality. We want to eliminate poor people with qualitatively “less worthy” lives because we have convinced ourselves of artificial limits. Wouldn’t nature automatically kill us off if we reached such a limit? Then why are we taking the matter into our own hands?

 

[SonSearcher]

Darn right!

wait, I just agreed with you …

but honestly, you don’t even need to be a devil’s advocate to argue that point. We build structures that occasionally appear similar to upside-down arcs, but have a completely different function and intent. when the builder builds the church, he doesn’t think, “I’m going to build a gigantic, upside-down boat for people to worship in.” No, he thinks, "I’m going to build a church. God wouldn’t care in the slightest if we changed the shape of our churches.

The point of the births of villians doesn’t necessarily contradict catholic teaching, it only nullifies the argument that abortion is evil paritally because of the fact that some Mozart or Einstien won’t be born.

In any case, I don’t know of any Catholic infallible dogma to back most of the Pro-life movement. (If someone *does *know of some dogma that confirms the Pro-life movement, let me know!) If there is no infallible dogma about it, then it could be wrong, in which case it is our duty as rational Catholic human beings to either set the ship straight or come to a rational understanding of why it is already straight.

And hopefully, you got one. Sorry if I go on a tangent here for a while, but I want to be clear about why I’m giving a contrary view. It isn’t solely for the sake of being contrary or to get a high from stiring the pot. In this particular case, I actually believe the view I’m putting forward (to clarify, I believe abortion is probably wrong but that there might be room for contraception), but I often give the opposing view because either there aren’t any atheists around to give it, or else I see what I consider to be some rational flaw that needs fixing in the theistic arguments, which would be exactly what an atheist would pounce on. As catholics, our highest duty is to save as many souls as possible, and in order to do that, we have to get rid of our bad arguments. That way our good arguments will be far more convincing.

I think the ten commandments is pretty infallible. Number 5 - Thou shalt not kill. No need for Church teaching. Remember Jesus didn’t come to nullify the law, not one iota of the law passes.

Abortion is surely wrong, and contraception is also an evil means. In 1965 the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology changed the definition of the beginning of life from the moment of conception to implantation which is days later. We currently use means of contraception that deny the implantation of the already conceived life. That means God creates life with his define spark, bang. Because that is what our Church states. Moment of conception is beginning of life. So in using most contraception methods we deny implantation of life already begun.

An interesting side note about our parish church is that the architect who is also a member and devout Catholic purposely built the church to appear from the inside as and upside down boat. Pretty big one at that. It is all wood and gorgeous.

 

[zro_x]

I think the ten commandments is pretty infallible. Number 5 - Thou shalt not kill. No need for Church teaching. Remember Jesus didn’t come to nullify the law, not one iota of the law passes.

but the law only applies if a Fetus really is a human being

Abortion is surely wrong, and contraception is also an evil means. In 1965 the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology changed the definition of the beginning of life from the moment of conception to implantation which is days later. We currently use means of contraception that deny the implantation of the already conceived life. That means God creates life with his define spark, bang. Because that is what our Church states.

but does the church state this infallibly?

also, some contraceptives attempt to prevent conception, rather than implantation.

An interesting side note about our parish church is that the architect who is also a member and devout Catholic purposely built the church to appear from the inside as and upside down boat. Pretty big one at that. It is all wood and gorgeous.

Really? have to admit, that’s pretty cool.

 

[SonSearcher]

but the law only applies if a Fetus really is a human being

but does the church state this infallibly?

also, some contraceptives attempt to prevent conception, rather than implantation.

Really? have to admit, that’s pretty cool.

I give up. Anyone else want to jump in here?

 

[tonyrey]

While many of you have some great replies to the question of an overpopulation problem, I think it would be more prudent to discuss how such a problem could be theologically and morally confronted in ways harmonious with Catholic teaching, rather than simply state that there is no problem. Why? Well, firstly, it is certainly a live possibility that in the future (near or distant) there could be an overpopulation problem and it’s better to be prepared for these kinds of issues, and, secondly, it would at least give us a viable Catholic response to those who do believe there is a population problem. More effort should be spent considering what to do rather than simply denying.

I asked my question “assuming there is or will be a problem”…

Christianity implies that we have a right to have as many children as we want. The Chinese government denies this right on the ground that it is a lesser evil to limit the number of births than to run the risk of famine in their country. We may disagree with their implementation of this policy but sometimes our freedom of individuals has to be curtailed for the common good**. If** we knew it is highly likely there will be famine in our country, for example, if we have unnecessarily large families would it be right not to take action to prevent it?

 

[GEddie]

I asked my question “assuming there is or will be a problem”…

Christianity implies that we have a right to have as many children as we want. The Chinese government denies this right on the ground that it is a lesser evil to limit the number of births than to run the risk of famine in their country. We may disagree with their implementation of this policy but sometimes our freedom of individuals has to be curtailed for the common good**. If** we knew it is highly likely there will be famine in our country, for example, if we have unnecessarily large families would it be right not to take action to prevent it?

Well TR: As a Catholic, what forms of population control do you believe would be consistent with the teachings of the Faith?

Remember, matters of sexuality and family fall under morals, in which the Church is infallible, and we as sinners are required to follow. There are no caveats for “if the civil state thinks there may be a famine”. Moral teachings are nonnegotiable.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

Well TR: As a Catholic, what forms of population control do you believe would be consistent with the teachings of the Faith?

Remember, matters of sexuality and family fall under morals, in which the Church is infallible, and we as sinners are required to follow. There are no caveats for “if the civil state thinks there may be a famine”. Moral teachings are nonnegotiable.

ICXC NIKA

I agree with you. Catholics should avoid artificial birth control but we don’t have the right to impose - or even attempt to impose - our beliefs and values on those who disagree with us. We we obviously have to choose the lesser evil.

 

[GEddie]

I agree with you. Catholics should avoid artificial birth control but we don’t have the right to impose - or even attempt to impose - our beliefs and values on those who disagree with us. We we obviously have to choose the lesser evil.

Clearly we as Catholics have no right (or capacity) to force our beliefs on others. That was not my point.

You asked, whether something should not be done to limit population in advance of a possible future famine. My question is whether any form of population control, as such, is acceptable in the Faith. ISTM that answer would be no.

We cannot force our beliefs on others, but neither have we the right to encourage others (or the civil state) to actions we believe to be wrong, whatever the future may or may not hold.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Jade17]

Well said, especially since this is a global problem. Hindu, Judaism, and Islam all have different views on contraception. Instead of pushing one method over another, I think an education system that teaches a variety of methods should be encouraged. Let the individual decide what is right for them (whether it be condoms or NFP) based on their own morals and beliefs.

 

[SonSearcher]

Well said, especially since this is a global problem. Hindu, Judaism, and Islam all have different views on contraception. Instead of pushing one method over another, I think an education system that teaches a variety of methods should be encouraged. Let the individual decide what is right for them (whether it be condoms or NFP) based on their own morals and beliefs.

But that suggests moral relativism which is quite dangerous ground. The Pope has spoke on that subject…

“Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of educating is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires,” - Benedict XVI

“When policies do not presume or promote objective values, the resulting moral relativism, instead of leading to a society that is free, fair, just and compassionate, tends instead to produce frustration, despair, selfishness and a disregard for the life and liberty of others,”

• Benedict XVI

And a couple of Christian Folks-

“relativism will certainly end our species and damn our souls.” - CS Lewis

“Morality is always dreadfully complicated to a man who has lost all his principles.” - GK Chesterton

 

[Fr_P]

I agree with you. Catholics should avoid artificial birth control but we don’t have the right to impose - or even attempt to impose - our beliefs and values on those who disagree with us. We we obviously have to choose the lesser evil.

“We Obviously Have To …” Why?

We believe that all evil is bad for us.

So, we only advise people to choose the LESSER evil when we have failed to convince them to avoid doing evil. It is never a GOOD choice.

 

[tonyrey]

Clearly we as Catholics have no right (or capacity) to force our beliefs on others. That was not my point.

You asked, whether something should not be done to limit population in advance of a possible future famine. My question is whether any form of population control, as such, is acceptable in the Faith. ISTM that answer would be no.

We cannot force our beliefs on others, but neither have we the right to encourage others (or the civil state) to actions we believe to be wrong, whatever the future may or may not hold.

ICXC NIKA

I take it for granted that we have a moral obligation to discourage others by explaining why we believe actions are wrong! Otherwise we would be failing to follow the example of Our Lord.

Population control can be effected to a certain extent by education and social work.

 

[SonSearcher]

I take it for granted that we have a moral obligation to discourage others by explaining why we believe actions are wrong! Otherwise we would be failing to follow the example of Our Lord.

Population control can be effected to a certain extent by education and social work.

Father Bill Casey was preaching our parish mission last week he said “I got a great joke… you can tell it to God and He will surely chuckle.” He said “Just tell Him your plans.”

I think that “population control” in general is planning… not leaving it to God to handle His business. He is in charge, we have to have faith that He has the reigns. Sure we may educate our population but it comes down to the individual and how they will live their life. Until all individuals are going to take responsibility for their actions we are dead in the water.

My biggest argument to people who challenge me on the abortion issue is “I agree you do have a choice. Keep it in your pants.” It is that personal responsibility, self control, discernment… these should be stressed.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Imagine and island with enough resources to support about 40 people. Over populate the island with 200 people. Do you think the island will remain overpopulated?

 

[mymamamary]

Imagine and island with enough resources to support about 40 people. Over populate the island with 200 people. Do you think the island will remain overpopulated?

**The world is still not nearly at its carrying capacity even with 7 Billion. I’m not saying that overpopulation is not a possibility, However, at this stage, its not a rational possiblity.

The overpopulation agenda of today is reminiscent of nazi germany. Its a systematic attempt to rid the world of inconviences. The poor, unborn, uneducated, You name it, they should be eliminated.

They should call this sham : Nazism 2.0, revisited.

Even the UN has something to say, and when the smart-as-sticks UN says something, there is some level of truth in it.

c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-3/un-issues-warning-on-looming-international-underpopulation-problem.html**

 

[Jade17]

**The world is still not nearly at its carrying capacity even with 7 Billion.

**

What leads you to believe that we’re not at carrying capacity?