I like this site! I often argue the economic or geopolitical aspects of this issue but this takes it from the individual family. If you like it, great...if you don't I am sorry. This is here for people to ponder.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This raises an interesting question, kind of off-topic, hope you don't mind.
THe site says that having a large family will conter-act abortion, since then more people will see how great children are and want to have some of thier own. Which sparked a though, could abortion be a meme that gets bred out by natural selection? Certainly not everyone from a big family wants or has a big family, nor vica-versa, but you're far more likely to have a large family if you came from one (if only because of cultural considerations that lead to the intial large family get passed on). So while those who particpate in abortion (and contraception) dwindle, those who don't have large families that continue in that tradition.
Is that true, or am I missing something? And no, I don't think by the year 2033 all those living in America will be in large families because of this, just in general it seems like those the number of people who have abortions and contraceptions has to start decreasing.
posted
If only it were that simple -- a matter of genes. I have what some would consider a big family, yet I have a sister who only has one child that didn't get aborted. I have a half-sister with five kids and a half-brother with none.
So I don't see a genetic thing involved. Maybe it's more cultural/religious. I knew a raving liberal gal in college who, upon taking the discussions and becomming a devout Mormon said she wanted at least 4 kids. I think it's what one believes, your level of connection to a family core ideal, and you willingness to sacrifice in the short term (long nights of sleep when you have infants) for considerable returns in the future -- longer and more happy lives.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes, it has nothing to do with religion at all. Some people love kids and want big families, others don't want kids at all, or only want one or two.
I have found, just in my observations, that this is generally unrelated to whether you came from a large family. I know people who came from large families who absolutely do not want a family like that. By the same token, I know people from small families who wanted and ended up having lots of children.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Micheal, I didn't say genes, I said meme, different things.
Ela, I think you're partially right, but since it often is relgious it seems like the percentages still have to be highly in favor of big familys producing more big familys and small familys producing more small familys. Obviously doesn't happen everytime for everyone, but the statistics should support it.
posted
Just for you, Michael, I promise that if I ever have eight children, I'm going to raise them all Satanist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that's the case, the LDS will win; they get you after you're dead, too, and the other ones only convert your sperm.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cannot say that all of those reasons are logical. If people want to have children, they should. If they don't, they should not. And if they must have a lot of kids they SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THEM... Plus I wish people would stop using phrases like secular humanist... It really makes me twitch because there really is a population problem, but 1 child in the US eats more resources than 12 in a place like India. This does not mean I am saying Don't have children and advocating putting salt peter in the water, this is just something to point out...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love the fact that I'm supposed to have another child in order to help populate Heaven. I mean, come on....no kid raised by me has a chance at getting past the pearly gates!
quote:Plus I wish people would stop using phrases like secular humanist... It really makes me twitch because there really is a population problem, but 1 child in the US eats more resources than 12 in a place like India.
This bothered me, too, Syn.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's just a phrase like politically correct or... what ever term people use for right wingers to dismiss a person's opinions without thinking about them. Besides. There IS no secular humanist, liberal elite, left wing hippy conspiracy to stop people from having children because many educated elite people have children as well!!!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like what former abortionist and former abortion advocate Dr. Bernard Nathanson once pointed out -- aborting a child in the US will not help a child in the developing world. It's kinda like when you were a kid and your mom told you to clean your plate because theri were starving people in China. If you were a smart-aleck like I was you told her to put it in the mail and send it to them. Not having a child in the developed world doesn't help some starving kid in the 3rd. world any more than not watering your yard in Georgia will magically provide more water for drought stricken people in Chad.
Guess what happens to the food that isn't sold at the local grocery store? It gets dumped. So the reasoning that it's okay not to have children -- even in countries suffereing from too low birthrates (Japan, S. Korea, Europe, Singapore, USA, Australia, etc.) because you will be helping people in the developing world is not valid in the least.
By the way, the average meal I had in China you had to throw much of it away because they serve you too much. And now obesity is becomming a major health problem in countries like India and China.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe if kids wasted less food, the parents would have to buy less, and therefore have more money to send to Sally Struthers and her starving ethiopian babies.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not about populating heaven... Religion is a form of government... more people of the faith means more people for the priests to rule. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Have another child to counter global depopulation. Anyone who has traveled from coast to coast in the United States and seen the vast empty spaces should know that America is not overpopulated. In fact, the entire population of the world could live in the state of Texas, in single-family dwellings with front and back yards.
well actually... global population is estimated to be 6.37 billion (from us census site), area of texas is 268,601 sq miles, which means that each person would have themselves a little plot of land approx. 1,174 sq ft. large. now, maybe if we assume nuclear families we could say that bumps the size up to 4,696 sq ft.
ok, forgot about that family thing, sort of defeats my point.
i just wanted to do some dimensional analysis really... Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The land we literally live in isn't the problem. Its the land required to sustain us. If everyone on earth lived at even half the luxury of your average america, there would not be enough resources to sustain it for a lifetime.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where did you get that? All the reasearch I've seen shows that if everyone were living at both America's consumption and America's production all the necessities would be plenty. Of course things like oil would run out darn fast, but that's going to happen soon anyways, so we need a work-around no matter what.
posted
Most regions of the earth can't sustain america's production. That's a bizarre assumption to make for a study with any hope of a reasonable prediction.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me rephrase, ample recourses exist such that our entire population could live at first world standereds if they als employed first-world technology and knolwedge (most places in third-world countries use outdated farming ideas as well as equipment).
posted
Am I the only one here who thinks abortion should be legal, but doesn't think it's right?
This seems to be the major conservative misconception: They call us pro-abortion, whereas the correct term is pro-choice.
Oh, and I hope you guys realize the only reason the Catholic church banned contraceptives is so they could get more catholics to give them money...
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't so much referring to food, that's easily handled in production, its only distribution that's a problem. For instance, are you aware of the incredible volumes of fresh water we consume?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't think you're the only one here, in fact I would be surprised if you find anyone here who thinks abortion is a good thing (besides in conditions in which the mother's health is in jeapordy).
And that's a bit harsh on the Catholic Church don't you think? I think they have a dogma against contraceptives because they see each child as a new soul allowed to come and live their life here, and each child not born as a soul barred from life.
posted
Hobbes I think you are mixing your Catholic and LDS theology. The Catholics don't have the same pre-existence of souls thing at all.
AJ
The anti-contraception reason that I have had given me by very devout Catholics is not an anti-small family reason. Most of them say that yes, while children are a gift from God, using NFP (Natural Family Planning) to limit your family size is just fine. The anti contraception comes from the anti-abortion stance because there is always the small chance that being on a regular birth control pill (not a morning after pill) can cause the same effects i.e. preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, which is in their eyes equivalent to abortion.
posted
I know, so when a child is born a whole new immortal soul is created that wouldn't existed in the first place, that's why it's even more vital to not have contraception within the Catholic theology, because that person will never exist if you choose to use birth control.
Just caught your edit (this is also an edit fyi). Yes that is one of the reasons given, but within their theology I think the one I listed was just as valid, of course every Catholic has their own individual reason for not using birth control (or using it as the case may be), mostly I was just pointing out that there were alternitives to the Catholic Church just wanting money.
posted
If don't want children and you use Natural Family Planning throughout your entire marriage and never have children (and I know couples that have succesfully used it and not had children for years), then you aren't sinning.
Has nothing to do with non-existent souls coming into being. Sorry, Hobbes.
AJ Edit to respond to your edit (See, while I agree there are other motivations besides money, I don't think the reason you gave was just as valid because both my own reading of the theology and having it explained to me by other friends has never said that, to my understanding .)
posted
Yah, I know, except that I gave my reason for why teh Catholic Church doesn't like birth control, it's my understanding that the Church, besides out right saying that birth control is wrong (for the reasons you mentioned) also promotes large families, the idea that each child is a blessing from God, so I don't think what I said was wrong...
quote: I think they have a dogma against contraceptives because they see each child as a new soul allowed to come and live their life here, and each child not born as a soul barred from life.
Yes the Catholic Church teaches that children are blessings from God. That is NOT the primary reason for the dogma against contraceptives. The primary reason is because of accidental Abortion due to the hormones in the pill.
The Catholic Church (in the US) requires anyone married in the church to actually attened a seminar on NFP before they marry along with a 6 month waiting period.
posted
I concede the point that the reason I listed was not the main reason, I still think it's a perfectly valid reason within Catholic theology. But that's not really the point, the point was that the accusation that they promoted families because they were cash-hungry was at best a bit extermist.
posted
That's BS. If the dogma were to prevent accidental abortion, it would have nothing against condoms, which don't even allow the two parts to meet.
You also have to look at the timing of the dogma's inactment. It was soon after either the bubonic plague, the protestant movement, or both (I can't remember which). There was all of a sudden a lot less catholics, so they did everything to keep people from not having kids.
But, there is also a reason behind priests not marrying that's not the BS propaganda they tell people. Priests used to be able to marry, but when they died, their possesions went to the family and not the church. Can't have that happening...
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, AJ is right. Your reason is NOT Catholic theology and AJ's is. Your reason is your own theology.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before you start spouting off rumors and lies about the catholic church, how about you give the catechism a read (the lastest edition) as well as A Concise History of the Catholic Church.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
ArCHeR, I believe that if something is easily available, and there is any reason to desire it, people will use it. As long as it is legal to have abortions, there will be abortions.
If I thought that there was some way that abortion could be "safe, legal, and rare", I might support it. But I think it's a case of "...pick any two." All three conditions will never exist together.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As abortion was unsafe, illegal and common before it was legalized, and its now safe, legal and common, I know which situation I prefer between those.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the point I was gonna bring up. It's also why I think prostitution should be legalized.
People, in general, would rather do something highly regulated, but legal, than unregulated and illegal.
More specifically, if you outlaw abortion, a lot of the people who want the abortions will still have them, but very unsafely.
If you outlaw alcohol, people will buy it from criminals, and the criminals will gain more power and money.
If you outlaw prostitution, the prostitues will have to turn to dangerous men for protection and won't recieve any benefits, they won't be taxed, they can't unionize, etc.
If you legalize abortion, people will go to safe, well regulated and monitored clinics to get it done, and there wouldn't be as much of a health risk.
If you legalize alcohol, you can regulate it, and the mafia will never be as big as it once was.
If you legalize prostitution you can keep it regulated, the prostitutes can unionize, recieve health benefits, they can be tested for STDs regularly (just as the pornography industry is), and the "pimp" would either lose out to, or become a businessman.
See, it doesn't matter if you think people should do these things or not (I'm against alcohol use, abortion unless the mother's life is in danger, and having pre or extra-marital sex), what matters is finding the best way to protect the public from themselves and others.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: As abortion was unsafe, illegal and common before it was legalized, and its now safe, legal and common, I know which situation I prefer between those.
Can you document just how common abortion was before it was legalized, particularly by comparison to how common it is now?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Synesthesia enlightened us with: Cannot say that all of those reasons are logical. If people want to have children, they should. If they don't, they should not. And if they must have a lot of kids they SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THEM... Plus I wish people would stop using phrases like secular humanist... It really makes me twitch because there really is a population problem, but 1 child in the US eats more resources than 12 in a place like India. This does not mean I am saying Don't have children and advocating putting salt peter in the water, this is just something to point out...
I feel a little environmentally conscious when I think about having kids. It's strange, but I imagine the amount of natural resources the kid would consume in its lifespan..
Also, ArCHeR:
quote:But, there is also a reason behind priests not marrying that's not the BS propaganda they tell people. Priests used to be able to marry, but when they died, their possesions went to the family and not the church. Can't have that happening...
Eh?
I also seem to remember hearing other reasons for Catholics to not use any form of birth control.. more general things along the lines of condoms etc. eliminating the chance for conception, something the Church apparently feels is essential to a sexual relationship. I don't really understand how Natural Family Planning is any different than artificial birth control, really. Planning out when you have sex to reduce the chance of pregnancy (very effectivly) is the same to me as artificial methods.
[ June 19, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't always work though Just like artificial methods. Heck, I bet people could use condoms, pills AND the rhythm method and there STILL would be a chance of having an unexpected baby.
I was thinking that prostitution should be legalized and heavily taxed... It seems like a lot of the upper elite would go to them as well as the so-called common man. it would be wrong, as I dislike infidelity or skanking around, but it would be so lucretive.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
And on something we have somewhat more accurate statistics on, approximately one third of the abortions world wide are illegal -- which definitely shows that even when illegal, there's a high demand for abortion.
Apparently, in the 1890s contemporary estimates placed the number of abortions per year at two million in the US: http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/abortion.htm . Nowadays there are only around one and a half million per year in the US.
In the 1950s over 1000 women a year (that we know of) died from ill performed abortions -- if you believe one of the higher statistics, that's a failure rate of around .1%, and if you think the lower statistics are correct, the failure rate approaches .5%
Contrasting that, the death rate from legal abortions is only around 1 per 100,000 -- about .001%: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact.htm That's two orders of magnitude greater chance of surviving a legal abortion than an illegal one.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you. I found that contrary to what I would have expected: I would have expected the frequency of abortions to have increased since abortions became legal. Some of the information on that last site was quite suprising.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
