What do we do when there are too many people on the planet?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vonsalza said:
…couples who execute it perfectly have as high as a 99.5% change of NOT getting pregnant in a given year - roughly the same as with most other contraceptive methods.
Click to expand...
NFP can be used to reduce (or increase) the chance of pregnancy. So can complete abstinence reduce the chance. I am sure you agree it is permissible to decline an act which might lead to pregnancy, and in fact to decline it for that very reason. Or should we feel compelled? What NFP does not do is alter the procreative nature of any sexual act. The chance of pregnancy may be altered - up or down - by virtue of timing, not by altering the natural progress of the act. The “procreative nature” of the act is language for the “natural course” of the act, not for the "probability of pregnancy this month”.
Vonsalza said:
They want to enjoy sex without having kids! So they use NFP!
Click to expand...
For a good slice of the month, that is in fact how our bodies work! The Church says - work with that, but don’t corrupt the sexual act itself - let if function as God designed it. And that includes infertile periods. Where is it held that it is wrong to have sex in the knowledge that pregnancy is most unlikely? Nowhere. Not after menopause. Not between fertile periods.
Vonsalza said:
And then you come along and type “NFP does nothing at all to the procreative nature of sexual acts.”

You’re joking, apparently. You have to be. If it didn’t have a clear effect on procreation, Catholics wouldn’t use it. We wouldn’t be talking about it.
Click to expand...
Word games and obfuscation. It’s OK to limit the chances of having children over time. Abstain permanently if you wish, or abstain periodically. But when having sex - at a time chosen to have low probability of conception - allow each sexual act to retain its natural procreative nature. A nature that is retained so long as the marital act is natural.
Vonsalza said:
Uhhhhhh…
Click to expand...
Yes - natural sexual acts retain their “procreative” nature after menopause, during infertile times or fertile times. The pill robs the acts of that nature. A condom robs the act of that nature. Withdrawal robs the act of that nature. In no case is the fact of, or probability of, a conception at all relevant.
Vonsalza said:
It corrupts all of them due to its anti-procreative timing. … NFP is Anti- or non-procreative sex-timing.
Click to expand...
They are not corrupted by virtue of their timing. Were that so, then we must cease sexual relations at menopause.

You believe “procreative” is referring to the potential for conception. It. Is. Not. It’s referring to the form of the sexual act - is it allowed to proceed to its natural ends without interference.

For those feeling they do wrong by practicing NFP, they are fully entitled, and earn no opprobrium at all, if they instead choose to be fully abstinent until a time when they feel ready and able to conceive a child. Indeed for some people, this course of action is what their circumstances appear to require.
 
Last edited:
QwertyGirl said:
40.png
Gorgias:
And ABC is capable of a permanent answer?
Click to expand...
Sure it is, if it is done properly.
Click to expand...
Not permanent, though.

Just possible to do, over and again, on an ongoing basis. No act of ABC is permanent, though.
And then there is always sterilization, too.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But, unless it’s done for reasons other than the desire to permanently disable one’s physical abilities, it’s not licit according to the understanding of God’s desire for us to embrace the gifts He’s given us…
 
Rau said:
It’s OK to limit the chances of having children over time. Abstain permanently if you wish, or abstain periodically.
Click to expand...
With abstinence you avoid having sex.
With NFP you want to have sex but you don’t want to have children. Are you then frustrating the primary purpose of having sex?
 
Whenever one chooses to not have sex, one might be turning down an opportunity to create a child. You’re not suggesting that is in itself wrong, are you?

Women are fertile only for a portion of each month - that is inherent to God’s design. Must we ignore that?

Some people take a view that if a pregnancy is to be avoided “this month/cycle”, sex should be avoided for the entire month/cycle, even though fertility is limited to much less than that. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Last edited:
Is this thread purely a hypothetical philosophy question or a real world discussion or a mixture of both? It’s in the philosophy section, but it seems likes it’s being discussed in a fairly real world way.

I myself don’t believe over population will ever occur, so it’s kind of a moot point, unless it’s just purely philosophy.
 
Vonsalza said:
I claim that NFP is contraceptive as the word is defined by virtually anyone not ideologically inclined to tamper with the definition.
Click to expand...
The only way that NPF is defined that matters is by the only Church established by Christ and given authority in matters of faith and morals.
 
Is there no one else concerned about the lack of singular/plural agreement in the OP? Priorities, people.
 
idk …“too many people” could be a concept, of sorts, therefore singular. 🙂
 
Vonsalza said:
I think where many, many folks would challenge you is whether celibacy is a choice or a spiritual gift.
Click to expand...
Of course. They are expected to do whatever Western culture dictates to remain uncriticized in polite society. The canon is swinging towards children, well the ones who survive abortion and qualify to be “human”.

So salute, and follow the programming.

Aye Sir!

🤯
 
Last edited:
There will never be too many people on the planet. Remember that God has a plan.
 
Rau said:
How does it end? Were WW1 and WW2 part of that plan, or was that all our own work? Bad stuff happens.
Click to expand...
God has a certain permissive will, in which He allows certain things to happen “for the good of those who love Him” (Romans 8:28), however, He also has His divine will, which is unshakable and unstoppable. Remember that John prophesied Christ’s return and described how it was going to happen in detail. This language wasn’t figurative or metaphorical. We are currently living in the end times and are rapidly nearing the end. The fact remains that, in accordance with the prophetic progression, we simply won’t have enough time for overpopulation to be an issue. That doesn’t mean, however, that we won’t have struggles; The Antichrist, however it appears–will make life unbearable for those who believe, and all of the nations will come and rise up against us. People talk about a rapture, but it isn’t likely nor logical, particularly due to the nature of the word “tribulation” itself.

So, to answer your question; It all ends with Christ coming back and completely sanctifying and redeeming faithful humanity once and for all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top