Religion and Birth Control
- Thread starter Arioch
- Start date
Oh thank science, finally! I support this because I don't want kids.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
False. Few months ago I came across this site http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop where I found the world population to be approximately 6,276,000,000. I then checked http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/tx_geography.htm and found the area of Texas as 268,601 square miles. One square mile is 640 acres and hence the area of Texas is 268,601x640=171,904,640 acres. Thus if you fit the entire population of the world into Texas each person would have
171,904,640/6,276,000,000 = 0.027 acres.
0.027 arces is the same as 1176.12 square feet.
A quick search on a web site that lists homes for sale and I see that the average 3 bedroom home, so I take it that this would be for 3 to 4 people (that is a couple sharing one bedroom) is just over 2000 square feet. So 1176.12 square feet for one person is a big area.
I guess I have no opinion of male birth control since I'm a woman. I do have to say my favourite is the vasectomy
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
The answer is very simply if you understand the underlying theological philosophy. The bible says that creation is good and that God created the Earth and everything on it, saw that it was good, and said it should all "go forth and multiply." It is very simple logic that if something is good and it reproduces itself, you want it to go on growing and reproducing. So for the Catholic Church to say that birth-control is good, they would be implicitly saying that human life is bad. They cannot say that human life is bad because they believe that humans are created in God's image with the purpose of re-creating themselves and the creation. For them to say that reproducing too much is sinful, they would have to define limits to God's bounty, which they do not believe in. Islam is the same; the Koran discourages mercy-killings in times of hunger, drought, or poverty because "God will provide." The Catholic Church doesn't decry the NFP method, however, because they believe that sexuality is pro-creative in the sense that it results in a pro-creative and happy marriage, which is conducive to raising children. So, in practice, Catholics are allowed to have sex that isn't directly geared to reproduction although there are no guidelines as to exactly how many or few children a couple should have. I suppose couples are allowed to find out for themselves how many children God has planned for them. It is silly, though, to expect that the Catholic Church would every prescribe population-control since that implies that God will not ultimately provide. No child is unwelcome for people who have true faith in God's creation. They just don't want them to be seduced into evil.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
I oppose artificial birth control. Some reasons -
The BCP is linked to higher rates of breast cancer http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/abckahl.htm and in July 2005 World Health Organisation researchers reported that although uterine and ovarian cancer risk is lower, there are higher risks of cervical and liver cancers with combined birth control pills.
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/050831/
Low dose pill is just as bad, especially for women who smoke, and has the added advantage of being much less effective, therefore generating potential income for the abortion business.
F.D.A. Warns of Sleeping Pills’ Strange Effects
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/business/15drug.ready.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Taken from this website
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/birthcontrolpills.html
Another one here
http://www.answers.com/topic/oral-contraceptive
Hormonal contraceptives make all users 3- to 6-times more likely to clot. For women who are already prone to clotting (due to clotting disorders, age 35+, obesity, or tobacco use), using hormonal contraceptives is like throwing fuel on the fire. 5% - 8% of Americans have clotting disorders. Most people learn of their clotting disorder after they clot (unless you specifically ask to be tested). Doctors do not test for these disorders before prescribing hormonal contraceptives, even if your family has a known history of clotting disorders.
Here are two even-keeled webpages that discuss the known risks and side effects of hormonal contraceptives:
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/understanding_birth_control_medications_contrace/article_em.htm
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives (this one goes into more depth on the possible cancer link, citing specific studies.)
Last edited:
@MOM --
But in order to continue to multiply one of two things must happen, either our population must decrease or we must slow the rate at which we multiply to a sustainable level.
Only to a point as it's also simple logic that too much of a good thing quickly becomes deadly. Humans are no different in this regard.
How do you figure that? Not only does birth control(in the form of condoms) save lives but it prevents abortions, which the RCC considers to be a sin worthy of excommunication(even though genocide isn't). Not only this but going through multiple pregnancies, especially back to back pregnancies, is incredibly dangerous to the woman's health. Shouldn't considering humans "good" involve caring for those that are already here rather than condemning millions of them to die needlessly every year?
Despite the risks that come with it I still consider it to be superior to the alternatives. There are only three forms of natural birth control that work, plague, famine, and war. Given the options available, the artificial birth control is the lesser of two evils.
Not only that, but the new male birth control pills wouldn't suffer from many of those problems(many of them aren't hormone based at all). They show no mood altering side effects, no signs of an increased risk of cancer, and no negative effects for the sex drive. I'm pretty sure that addresses the technical concerns about artificial birth control.
I'm not sure why you included information about sleeping pills though, that's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
But in order to continue to multiply one of two things must happen, either our population must decrease or we must slow the rate at which we multiply to a sustainable level.
Only to a point as it's also simple logic that too much of a good thing quickly becomes deadly. Humans are no different in this regard.
How do you figure that? Not only does birth control(in the form of condoms) save lives but it prevents abortions, which the RCC considers to be a sin worthy of excommunication(even though genocide isn't). Not only this but going through multiple pregnancies, especially back to back pregnancies, is incredibly dangerous to the woman's health. Shouldn't considering humans "good" involve caring for those that are already here rather than condemning millions of them to die needlessly every year?
Despite the risks that come with it I still consider it to be superior to the alternatives. There are only three forms of natural birth control that work, plague, famine, and war. Given the options available, the artificial birth control is the lesser of two evils.
Not only that, but the new male birth control pills wouldn't suffer from many of those problems(many of them aren't hormone based at all). They show no mood altering side effects, no signs of an increased risk of cancer, and no negative effects for the sex drive. I'm pretty sure that addresses the technical concerns about artificial birth control.
I'm not sure why you included information about sleeping pills though, that's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
a lot has to do with one's reasoning on where life begins
Since the general (pro-life) consensus is that life begins at conception, this doesn't really fit in the same category (at least for the day after variety) .
That isn't to say that it automatically condoned, merely that the arguments for the protection of life in the womb are not applicable.
Arguments against it would fall under the category of implications of using something for what it is not designed (IOW the consequences of excessive sex life on the mind or attitudes towards child rearing, the family unit, infidelity, prodigy that arises as a consequence of failed contraception etc)
Last edited:
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
The problem is that you only know that based on assumptions and human (i.e. fallible) methods of estimation. Plus, for all you know limiting population growth results in levels of wealth and lifestyles that end up resulting in more deaths and childlessness. Thus if people would limit their family-size on the assumption that doing so will keep population growth under control, it could end up backfiring as population actual spirals into a degenerative, pattern of destruction. The fact is that no one can ultimately predict human behavior. Personally, I can see having just one or two kids with the faith that they will prosper but someone else may feel like having more kids is a safety precaution against losing one or more to tragedy at some point. Religion is not a "threat to survival of humanity." Different people interpret religion differently and have different numbers of kids or don't have kids at all. As I have save in other thread, the good thing about religion is that it keeps people living in hope and good faith, which is good for preventing the world from being overrun by death-driven nihilists.
Wiki has lots of stats on abortion.
The CDC compiles the # of abortions as REPORTED... the numbers are going down.
This site has some older stats.
It shows that 54% of those getting an abortion used a failed contraception. Abortion is their Back-up Method.
46% apparently didn't think they could get PG, didn't want to use contraception, or didn't expect to be having sex... so no contraception...
Artificial methods are not required to do this.
Chastity or NFP will accomplish it nicely.
As for the condom alone, I thought this was a rather well balanced article.
http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-21741
Abstinence is 100% safe.
Last edited:
or alternatively reduce or eliminate artificial standards of existence.
A general law of existence you could say is that anything done artificially will ultimately fail ... even artificial solutions such as birth control.
Do you eat when you're not hungry?
Do you think it is healthy to eat when you're not hungry?
Why have sex if you don't want to have children?
This is a joke yes?? Because you could build a house for everyone the earth is not overpopulated?
Those 6,276,000,000 people as of now have consumed 3,399,707,000,000,000 liters of water this year. 70% of that went to producing food to feed that population. Texas' water supply with it's current population is in the very high stress catagory. That is only the tip of the iceberg with regards to what is wrong with your post above, If it was sarcasm then disregard this.