The beauty of the "no method" method, is really in how it welcomes the babies to come alive as they were meant to.
Pronatalist said:
Of course there should always be forward-thinking people around, who always welcome the natural expansion of the already "huge" human race.
Why do you say that? Did I start this discussion thread? No. Is population growth a controversial subject? Apparently, Yes. Quite many people still have little or no objection to the
natural increase of humans. What does my screen name say about me? That I already naturally encourage childbearing. And I have listed many reasons as to why. So that parents may enjoy having their precious darling babies, no matter that world population seems to a few overeducated morons, to be perhaps growing too "huge." So that all the more fellow human beings may experience life. So that so many people need not go against nature, to ever get around to selecting a "satisfactory" means of "birth control." I don't at all ask people to use any means of "family planning," as I see the "no method" method as natural, elegant, beautiful, most pro-life.
Why is it so "surprising" that some people who still have morals, who still fear God, who still have faith, see something of how "huge" the human race's burgeoning numbers are growing, suspect an underlying intelligent reason for it, and want only to ACCOMODATE population, never to go against nature and freedom to "control" people needlessly and against their will? Why be so close-minded? Humans are highly intelligent and ADAPTABLE, and so why not ease the natural transition to a high-population-density world perhaps, by EMBRACING our population growth? "Trolling" is hardly the only explanation. To suggest that, suggests apparently a "small" mind on your part. Most all people naturally and instinctly like to see human numbers rising, the human race "progressing," and tend to think that children are wonderful, adorable, and cute, at least some of the time. There's so much potential for comfortably and safely populating the world and the various nations, more densely with people, why not explore that, and find the ample place for the lots more people to soon come, perhaps REGARDLESS of what some fools may do to try to resist "what must be?
You are glorifying and encouraging out of control population sizes.
If you like the "no method" method so much why don't you shut it ?
Of course I am. One reason I do not believe humans should use any means of "birth control," is that I do not believe in imposing population "control." I'm a pronatalist, because "too many" people benefit so much from population growth, that I must be a population growth advocate then. So I encourage childbearing, as somebody has to do it, and not enough people these days, positive affirm the great immense value and sacredness of each and every human life. Setting any arbitrary population "cap" only increases the perceived risk that we may actually reach and surpass it. The best way to prevent that, is never to set any "cap" to begin with, and encourage world population size to swell and "bulge" and population densities to rise naturally, as it will, always ACCOMODATING, never "controlling." I do not believe that humans were ever meant to "control" each and every aspect of nature. Alter nature for human benefit, Yes, but not to such "earth control" extent as to be detrimental to man. The natural "blossoming" of the size of the human race, is very beautiful, as more and more people find opportunity to live.
"Out of control" in this case, pretty much means not subject to the "control" of the anti-life population control freaks. It doesn't mean that it isn't under some form of rather-lax natural control, as in that it takes some time for human populations to grow drastically in size, but not under the excessive control of NWO power-mad globalist control freaks, scheming to put themselves in place of God. If we are to impose "control" upon human population growth, who can we trust to do the "controlling?" I see nobody worthy of such trust, but God. Upon what basis to decide? A popular vote? Ha! Why would how many children I should have, ever be subject to
your vote?
Now sure, there may be some feminists or liberals who try to say how many children they have, is nobody's business but their own. If that was ever true, it isn't anymore. What if everybody had large families? Wouldn't society be forced to populate denser? So how many children we have, at least in an increasingly highly populous world, apparent does affect everybody around us. But that doesn't at all diminish our God given right to procreate. And most of the effects are generally positive. So I see that people would have some basis for comments and opinions say like "When are you going to give us some grandchildren." And I do believe people should be honest on census forms, as long as they have good reason to believe that demographic data will be used to better support population-proportional representative government, and population ACCOMODATION, and never be used against them for anything sinister such as supposedly having had "too many" children. I see human population something perhaps subject to trying to keep some accurate measure of, but never something that humans have any moral right to "control."
Our ancestors saw human population, more as God sees it according to our perspective, population is what it is. How did we forget that? Why does man think he has to be "in control" of everything, contrary to human life, contrary to family, contrary to freedom? Why do we allow ourselves to be so manipulated by contrived crises that aren't as they are "scare tactics" stated?
Why don't I shut it? Shut what? The womb? Don't have sex if I like the "no method" method so much? Whatever for? The natural purpose of human reproductive organs, is to
reproduce babies, so I say let the babies push out naturally. As the numbers of women of childbearing age perhaps continues to rise naturally throughout much of the world, let babies freely push out of all the more birth canals, encouraging more people to marry young and use absolutely no method of "birth control." The natural remedy for powerful human reproductive urges, is pregnancy. The natural remedy for pregnancy is childbirth. Large families are cool, as they allow so many more people to experience life. For food to convert into additional human bodies, is a completely natural and beneficial process. Food isn't just for mere selfish consumption, but for being vastly improved, in conversion from relatively cheap organic matter, to human bodies/souls of immense value and each and every human life sacred.
I like the "no method" method so much, because it's elegant and natural. It's the most pro-life. It welcomes babies to happen as they happen, and seeks to go along with God and the ways of nature, not to resist the natural flow of human life needlessly. It depends upon God, and is most in harmony with respecting human life, families, freedom, personal responsibility. It doesn't reek of Big Pharma lab rat experimentation upon humans. It respects the body's reproductive rhythms, and doesn't needlessly try to resist them, but embraces human fertility for some great or divine purpose. It's most consistant with "right to life" and "sanctity of life" and practical and "religious" belief systems. What can be more moral, than to "hold the door open" to the natural flow of human life unhindered, even for strangers?
Our ancestors believed more in respecting the natural flow of human life unhindered. Why don't we? The great falling away of faith prophecied in the Bible? Evil popular delusions clouding our judgement?
