Overpopulation and the right to have children

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GEddie said:
Did they have jobs in London?

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

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Many** had **jobs…

In London and elsewhere many children are going to school without breakfast whereas the rich have been given a 5% tax reduction.
 
NO need to worry about over population, the US and a large part of the assumed educated world is in for a permenant population decline for the next hundred years.

It was all a huge sucker you in to get people to have less children, so the people had more to spend on greed of luxury…

a large part of the world assumed they were soo smar/educatedt world gets to stand infront of God and answer to why they put wealth and luxury in front of God as false gods…

the assumed educated have showen they are most ignorant and uneducated in all of world history, failures.
 
tonyrey said:
Many** had **jobs…

In London and elsewhere many children are going to school without breakfast whereas the rich have been given a 5% tax reduction.
Click to expand...
It does sound like a modernization of Dickens…
 
InJesusItrust said:
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?
Click to expand...
Comparisons to the National Socialists of the '30’s? dens of thieves? A blight on the world? It is rabble who espouse such doctrines? You certainly don’t leave much for debate.I was hoping for a little more objectivity.
 
Everyone is ignoring my link and I am surprised that people can’t see the link to eugenics or billionaires like Ted Turner who have many kids but want to cull the population by 95%. He would not have kids if he believed all people are equally valuable. These are the same jokers who “help” Africans escape poverty by donating birth control.
 
Linux said:
Not really; but if overpopulation did become a real threat to human existence, people need to start thinking about other locations.🙂
Click to expand...
You’re right, of course. Fortunately I’m not faced with that prospect at my age!
 
jonathan_hili said:
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.
Click to expand...
I could very well be completely wrong about this, but I thought that at one point, Limbo was actually taught by the church, not just St. Augustine. I have no idea how widespread the teaching was or how long it lasted, so I’ll take your word for it that it wasn’t much of either.

What about the chain of being? St. Anslem wrote a book on natural hiearchies, and I belive it was widely accepted and taught by the church at the time.
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),
Click to expand...
hmm, I had forgotten this, but I think you’re right. In that case, does anybody know of any infallible teachings from the magisterium which back the pro-life movement?
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,
Click to expand...
I don’t know whether I’m right or not. As I’ve said before, I’m probably wrong, and I’ll follow the teachings of the Church in my actions until I have reason to doubt church authority. But I won’t stop questioning the reasons behind my religious practices. If I’m wrong, I’ll find out exactly why. And if not, then maybe I can help straighten the ship.
as is the natural moral law.
Click to expand...
As far as I can see, natural moral law has nothing whatsoever to say on this subject.
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)
Click to expand...
the Sunday obligation is an action. I will follow the Catholic teaching in all things, but I will only believe Catholic teaching if the teaching is infallible or I have good reason to believe it. In the case of Jesus being married, I take the church’s word for it that he wasn’t, because it doesn’t really matter in the long run, and because I have no reason to believe otherwise.
 
Linux said:
Pour billions into Nasa and create cities on the moon.
Click to expand...
the billions necessary to create self-sustaining cities on the moon would probably be similar to the amount of money necessary to solve any overpopulation problem here on Earth. Space colonization is a great idea, but overpopulation became a serious problem, then, ironically, We wouldn’t have the resources to afford it.
 
zro_x said:
the billions necessary to create self-sustaining cities on the moon would probably be similar to the amount of money necessary to solve any overpopulation problem here on Earth. Space colonization is a great idea, but overpopulation became a serious problem, then, ironically, We wouldn’t have the resources to afford it.
Click to expand...
In which case we would have to change our ideals about what it means to have wealth. In the star trek movie, about the Borg, captain Picard speaks of a society where money is meaningless because the goals of society is no-longer competition for resources, but rather everybody is working together for the benefit of the survival of the whole human race instead of individuals working only for there own benefit.
 
Linux said:
In which case we would have to change our ideals about what it means to have wealth. In the star trek movie, about the Borg, captain Picard speaks of a society where money is meaningless because the goals of society is no-longer competition for resources, but rather everybody is working together for the benefit of the survival of the whole human race instead of individuals working only for there own benefit.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it has anything to do with competition or cooperation. I’m saying that if an overpopulated planet has the resouces to build a self-sustaining space colony, They’ll also have the resources to fix whatever problems are causing or are caused by the overpopulation on Earth. Whether the citizens of the planet cooperate or not, they’ll still try and save the ship before venturing off on a lifeboat. And on an overpopulated planet where resources are scarce, they don’t have an “all of the above option.”

However, It may be worthwhile to pursue space colonization as a preventative measure rather than the cure. If we’re going to build self-sustaining space colonies, we’d best do so now before(and if) overpopulation arises and we will no longer be able to afford to.
 
zro_x said:
I don’t think it has anything to do with competition or cooperation. I’m saying that if an overpopulated planet has the resouces to build a self-sustaining space colony, They’ll also have the resources to fix whatever problems are causing or are caused by the overpopulation on Earth.
Click to expand...
With 90 percent of the worlds wealth owned by 10 percent of the worlds population, I would argue that it has more to do with how humans relate to other humans in terms of value, rather than there being a lack of resources. People are too busy hoarding and striving for economic power to care about the future they will leave behind in their wake; and when they do care its only because they have a personal stake in it. Poverty does not have to exist; it exists because the people who can change it don’t care about it. In fact it works in there favour to keep people weak, competitive and divided in the pursuit of happiness.
 
Linux said:
With 90 percent of the worlds wealth owned by 10 percent of the worlds population, I would argue that it has more to do with how humans relate to other humans in terms of value, rather than there being a lack of resources. People are too busy hoarding and striving for economic power to care about the future they will leave behind in their wake; and when they do care its only because they have a personal stake in it. Poverty does not have to exist; it exists because the people who can change it don’t care about it.
Click to expand...
That’s true, but human greed only accounts for the resources we have the ability to use; it doesn’t actully make a difference in the resources we actually have available to us. And, while unbalanced wealth will cause the Earth to be overpopulated much sooner and at a lower carrrying capacity, the Earth still has only finite resources. Eventually, you get to a point where no further generosity increases the general well-being of mankind. Even if everyone is as generous as can be, and resources are better utilized, overpopulation is still possible, though scarcity would start to occur with many more people.

and if an overpopulated earth has to decide between solving problems on Earth and building moon cities, you can guess which one humans will choose in either scenerio.
 
Linux said:
Not really; but if overpopulation did become a real threat to human existence, people need to start thinking about other locations.🙂
Click to expand...
There’s lots of places here on earth that could first be considered and are not as harsh as the moon and would be more hospitable to human life, such as the Siberian desert, Antarctica, the Sahara, and many others.
 
zro_x said:
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.

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?
Click to expand...
Thats exactly it. The Church CANNOT TEACH Error. I can draw a line at conception, because then philosophically, Where do I draw the line for life? Birth? 2 years old? Will it be legal to kill a 5 year old as it cannot be self sustaining? Sure it sounds like the slippery slope, but it is what it is.
 
mymamamary said:
Thats exactly it. The Church CANNOT TEACH Error.
Click to expand...
it has before, when the teachings were prone to fallibility.
I can draw a line at conception, because then philosophically, Where do I draw the line for life? Birth? 2 years old? Will it be legal to kill a 5 year old as it cannot be self sustaining? Sure it sounds like the slippery slope, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...
That’s because it is a slippery slope. As far as I can tell, conception is just as arbitrary as any other point. We have no way of knowing when life begins. It could begin later, or it could begin earlier. We just don’t know.

now, if the Catholic church stipulated that we can know that a fetus is a person from conception on by devine revelation, I could accept that. Devine revelation is a valid means of knowledge. But under those conditions, we could no longer argue that there are secular reasons to ban abortion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top