Why is Europe losing the will to breed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
niceatheist said:
And yet, apparently, if a woman opts not to have children, then somehow she’s defying the moral order?
Click to expand...
It is not a matter of choosing not to have children, but rather if the choice is founded on a belief that children would keep them from other things.

There is a phrase from Ignatius of Loyola that pops to mind “aversio a Deo et conversio ad creaturas”. It means turning away from God and turning towards created things. If one sees children as a barrier to the good life (what ever that may be), but still seeks sexual congress then yes that is defying the moral order. Can I assume all these people are simply forgoing sexual congress in preference for taking care of the poor, the disabled, the weak? If instead it is to have more money to go on vacation, to have a nice car, to go out with friends, then it is a turning away from God and turning towards material wants. All sin is fundamentally founded on a love of self over the love of others.
 
If they’re no Catholics why would they cease having sex? They could use birth control
 
niceatheist said:
If they’re no Catholics why would they cease having sex? They could use birth control
Click to expand...
Morality is not relativistic. Birth control is an offense against God and the natural law regardless if anyone personally believes that fact. Since God Himself is truth and there is only one God, then truth does not have many expressions that differs based on ones personal beliefs.

Even outside of a theological teaching, morality is based on what is the action oriented towards. To forgo children to take care of others is very different from forgoing children for personal enjoyment (or avoidance of a perceived possible lack of enjoyment). Since the biological purpose of intercourse is procreation then the morality of breaking that is determined by the reason.
 
And does it seem that the media, TV and movies degrade men and lift up women into men’s traditional roles? Almost to the point of WHO NEEDS MEN ANYWAY??? Or is it just me who thinks this is the newest narrative???
 
Vanny said:
All we heard out there, from ZPG ect, was to “Stop at Two.” One was better, and none at all was good.

This was the 70’s and 80’s. Kids were seen as someone above pointed out, noisy, messy, expensive, and conflicting with careers.
Click to expand...
And why would fun loving young people want little people cluttering up the scene??? I mean if young people of the child-bearing age are not ready to grow up and settle down themselves… why bring babies into the mix? Did that make sense??? Just asking.
 
And yet millions of Christians would disagree with you. Like it or not Catholicism has not been the totality of Christianity for over a thousand years and like it or not, whatever the rightness you believe of your views, you’re in a minority
 
Women’s rights have been around longer than tv. AGain another battle long lost by religious hardliners. I don’t want my two daughters bound by your particular religious beliefs, thank you very much
 
lack of well paying jobs, secularism, birth control & abortion
 
Not really the newest. The whole reversal of roles tend to be funny in general. Quite common in comedy, although in TV shows in general I think?
 
**people think they don’t have to have kids to find meaning in life. That’s kind of true (as in we all have our own vocations), but people try to defend theirs by putting down kids.

Singapore has a stop at two compaign once. People with 3 kids or more were branded as stupid. I think this is the same mentality in Europe as well. That kids hold us back.
 
If kids hold them back, why do they need immigrant families?
 
They realize how it affects the country and want a quick solution without having much kids themselves. At least that’s the case here
 
Truth is not determined by how many believe it. If only one person were left who believed the world was round instead of flat, the world would still be round, no?
 
It’s the case throughout the developed world. And it’s a solution that will fail when other countries’ birth rates drop because contraceptives are pushed onto them and they need people to run their countries.
 
Last edited:
JimG said:
Are they going to go directly from parents home to the welfare rolls?
Click to expand...
They might, especially if they go to public schools, given the priorities of many education policymakers. It’s a disaster in the making.
 
Last edited:
I don’t mind if that’s the immediate situation if the country also trying to promote family values tbh.

I honestly don’t get the hostility about immigration when it should be directed to the locals + government doing a terrible job at taking care of their country
 
SuperLuigi said:
40.png
niceatheist:
AGain another battle long lost by religious hardliners.
Click to expand...
You better check Islam.
Click to expand...
Because why exactly? Muslims make up an extremely small percentage of the area I live, so even if their birth rates were three times higher than the norm for everyone else, they’d still be centuries away from taking over my town.
niceatheist said:
I don’t want my two daughters bound by your particular religious beliefs, thank you very much
Click to expand...
Right, you just want us to clean other people’s mess with tax money.
Click to expand...
I don’t even know what this means. They pay taxes, I pay taxes. But unless you feel they should be forced to be breeding machines, I support their right to have or not have children as they decide.
 
Annie said:
Truth is not determined by how many believe it. If only one person were left who believed the world was round instead of flat, the world would still be round, no?
Click to expand...
So what’s the truth here, that in Catholicism, women are baby making devices, and they should accept their lot in life?
 
niceatheist said:
I don’t even know what this means. They pay taxes, I pay taxes. But unless you feel they should be forced to be breeding machines, I support their right to have or not have children as they decide.
Click to expand...
Strawman argument.
niceatheist said:
Because why exactly? Muslims make up an extremely small percentage of the area I live, so even if their birth rates were three times higher than the norm for everyone else, they’d still be centuries away from taking over my town.
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah, we know. The whole “but Islam is too small” excuse is used routinely by liberals and atheists to avoid criticizing it because it’s cool or PC. So much for the end of religion. 🤣😂

Besides, given the self-defeatist PC attitudes of Canada, they won’t need superior numbers to run the place, especially with taxpayer-funded Canadian media at their back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top