Contracepting Ourselves Out of Existence
I have been very busy this week with the start up of Catholic Stand, and settling some issues at Ignitum Today, so I haven’t had much time to do any writing. A friend sent me this video and indicated that someone (I don’t know who?) claimed that the studies (I don’t know which?) were flawed.
In the video, contraception is connected to the rise in homosexual behavior, to death and illness in women (heart attack, high blood pressure, stroke), to an unknown number of early abortions because contraception causes the death of embryos, to increases in promiscuity and infidelity, and to a rise in abortions due to failed contraception.
It also debunks the overpopulation myth quite succinctly in a way that I have not seen before (using Texas). Then, the video discusses the decline of populations and cultures, an issue I rarely hear contraception proponents address. With unbalanced demographics that economically cannot sustain the economies, cultures and populations are dying. The video cites what some countries are doing, paying people to have children, to overcome the declining birth rates.
In the last half, there is a discussion about IVF and cloning, and how many humans are killed because of it, and then the video turns to one of my favorite subjects — how these behaviors lead man to see himself as just another animal, driven by animal wants and not human intelligence. “We’re contracepting ourselves out of existence.”
Thoughts? If you cite a study, please reference it or indicate the time stamp in the video. I am curious to know how people refute the claims in the video.
Category: Abortion, Marriage, Random, Science, Secularism, Social Issues
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (91)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- Contracepting Ourselves Out of Existence | CATHOLIC FEAST | February 2, 2013
- Pro-life blog buzz 2-15-13 | February 16, 2013
If you have any trouble commenting, email me at stacytrasancos@msn.com. One of the plug-ins updated and that seemed to disturb some commenting system behavior.
Don’t have 13:33 to watch the entire thing, but a few things:
* The point about contraceptives making women “less desirable” to men implies that a woman *should* be desirable to men, that her purpose is linked to her ability to reproduce.
* The failure to implant by a fertilized egg happens often, even without contraceptions, up to 70% of the time[1]. The running joke is that this makes “God the biggest abortionist of them all”.
* The link between contraception and homosexuality is laughable, at best (how do gay people having sex benefit from birth control, exactly?). The link to infidelity and promiscuity – ignoring the puritanical fear of sex that comes with the mentality – is just another sign of the “correlation implying causation” fallacy[2]. Using this logic, I can show how the decline of piracy has resulted in an increase in global temperature.
* The “Texas” argument ignores problems of available resources – water, energy, food. People don’t need just land, they need resources, and those resources are localized with limited transportability.
1. http://publish.uwo.ca/~kennedyt/t108.pdf
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Er, this is why I shouldn’t post on the Internet on an empty stomach: the first point I raised is that it seems sexist to me too tie a woman’s purpose implicitly into her ability to reproduce or attract men.
Joshua, I am not sure what you are getting at. Are you are saying that somehow women are made incorrectly because we study sexual attraction?
The (under) population problem has been addressed also here:
http://www.lifenews.com/2009/06/29/int-1248/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA
> Are you are saying that somehow women are made incorrectly because we study sexual attraction?
No, it’s the negative association made by the video of a woman being “undesirable” to men. Not all women want kids, and not all women want to attract a man (regardless of sexual orientation). While it’s important to know about the impact of the usage of birth control on sexual interactions, those impacts don’t negate the value of contraception nor necessitate the need for denying access to it.
Josh,
I don’t know.
“…it seems sexist to me too tie a woman’s purpose implicitly into her ability to reproduce or attract men.”
It wasn’t tied to the ability to reproduce, but to being desired by men.
There are things we must do as human. We need to eat. We need to reproduce. Those are facts.
You could argue that no one really desires food that tastes good, therefore, no one should care if all we had to eat was tasteless bread and water, but that would defy all human experience.
Being desired by men, in this case, was tied directly to a woman’s ability to conceive.
Food is necessary to live, but reproduction is not. If I never have kids, I can still have a long and happy life. This isn’t the case for everyone, but neither is is true for everyone that there is a need to reproduce.
“Food is necessary to live, but reproduction is not.”
Yes, it is necessary for the human race. If we did not reproduce, we would cease to exist in one generation.
If there was no reproduction, you would not be here, so it is necessary even for your life.
If you define your purpose as to reproduce, mazel tov, but you seem to think everyone should share your idea of what a person should do with their life. Not everyone wants to have children, and you seem to be inclined toward forcing them to a different path for a perceived benefit of avoiding extinction. The human race, if it goes extinct in the near future, won’t do so due to low reproduction rates, but more likely over a violent contest of ideas or resources, the latter exacerbated by excessive birth rates.
Hey, I made fun of this video. Maybe I was the “someone”.
http://www.mysecretatheistblog.com/2012/11/if-someone-you-know-is-contracepting.html
- Godless Poutine
Josh,
I’m sorry, but those are opinions, preferences, inclinations. I’m talking about facts.
It is a fact that humans must reproduce for the human race to exist. Can’t be argued.
> I’m sorry, but those are opinions, preferences, inclinations. I’m talking about facts.
Birth control reducing the desirability of a woman by a man is a fact. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion. The difference is that I’m fine with not forcing people to follow my opinion, but it would appear you’re not content to do the same.
Sigh.
What I’d like from someone is a direct refutation to the studies cited.
You all understand the nature of a “study” right? By necessity it does not deal with solely the outliers of a statistical population.
Smoke and mirrors!
I’m trying to follow this thread. Wierd.
Your original question was: “I am curious to know how people refute the claims in the video.”
The claims appear to be about how some study on chimps means contraception is bad, that because we could all physically stand inside Texas we shouldn’t worry about population. Plus the whole debate about what is being actually claimed about the desirability of women. The refutation of the claims is simply that using a study (or some math – even when it’s done right!) to make your point about what ‘truth’ is not scientifically defensible. It doesn’t matter whether the studies were scientifically sound – to use them as evidence for claims of truth lacks a transparent honesty.
And your question has now changed to “What I’d like from someone is a direct refutation to the studies cited”. I am suspicious – the studies may or may not be good – but either way they do not lead to the claims in the video.
So Anonymous, are you saying that science cannot determine truth? That’s a first. What’s the point of doing science then?
“I’m fine with not forcing people to follow my opinion, but it would appear you’re not content to do the same.”
Joshua, I am always fascinated when someone says this. Please paste the quote you are referring to – having to do with FORCE.
Your argument is for a universal standard of “good” that’s exclusive to those who would prefer to live without children or do not want to attract men. Force doesn’t have to be explicit or physical.
Definition of FORCE
1
a (1) : strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power (2) capitalized —used with a number to indicate the strength of the wind according to the Beaufort scale
b : moral or mental strength
c : capacity to persuade or convince
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/force
I don’t see how merely having a “standard” is interpreted as FORCE unless you are misleading us by understanding it as persuasion.
Your universal standard would force people who don’t want children on the path to having children.
So, you said, “I’m fine with not forcing people to follow my opinion…”
I assume the standard we are talking about is that chemical birth control is to be considered as a bad thing to use. I also assume from your comment that you are against using FORCE (I have to assume you mean LAW also because you are not saying).
The problem I have is that you seem to be making a general condemnation of the enforcement of moral values as if you (the good guy) didn’t favor that. So, I also have to assume that you favor anarchy or a modified form of it, say, removing any reference to “Persons shall not…..” or “States shall not….” from the constitution.
> I assume the standard we are talking about is that chemical birth control is to be considered as a bad thing to use.
Not precisely. There are good reasons to not want to use birth control. I’m arguing that this video casts women who don’t want to be desirable to men and/or don’t want children are not being what a woman *should* be.
> The problem I have is that you seem to be making a general condemnation of the enforcement of moral values as if you (the good guy) didn’t favor that.
Again, not precisely. There are some moral values that are good to be enforced – e.g., let’s not murder one another – but that’s because those have demonstrable shared personal value (the “social contract”). A woman who doesn’t want children or want to attract men isn’t doing anything that really harms anyone else.
What I saw was a lowering or elimination of pheromones and lots of reasons for the propagation of the race. This is a male problem as well as female. In GENERAL terms yes, people “should” propagate if the current economic welfare and future existence of our species is considered.
I think you tried to sneak in the “I don’t force anyone” into the whole question. I read you as thinking you have a superior moral position. Your entire objection rests on the individuals choice to use a Group 1 Carcinogen. I then must assume that you object to the efforts to outlaw cigarettes.
> In GENERAL terms yes, people “should” propagate if the current economic welfare and future existence of our species is considered.
Can you define “should”? I take it to mean some kind of obligation – moral or otherwise – but your placement of quotations around it implies a different or more nuanced definition.
> I then must assume that you object to the efforts to outlaw cigarettes.
Outlaw? Yes, but I strongly support the raising awareness of the risks and potential harmful effects of it, same as birth control. People should make educated decisions about those kinds of things.
By “should” in this context, I mean that people in the larger population by their recognition of the problem we have worked our selves into, will hopefully change behavior. Fighting the facts presented in this video and sticking to old battle cries only exacerbates the problem. We are living with the legacy of the 1960s disaster of social upheaval.
“Outlaw? Yes, but I strongly support the raising awareness….”
There has never been objection to protecting the public from health risks from manufactured products unless those in power (government and business) wish no protection. If you lived through the socially acceptable era of smoking and chewing you should (without the quotes) have a strong understanding of the FORCES that wanted to continue the sale of this death weed. Awareness was a pipe dream. They were called “cancer sticks” by smokers way before anyone had a public objection for heaven sakes.
> By “should” in this context, I mean that people in the larger population by their recognition of the problem we have worked our selves into, will hopefully change behavior.
By telling women they should want to be desired by men and have children? The global population isn’t declining – it’s continued to grow quite fine on its own. The only argument you could possibly be making is if you’re trying to outbreed “them”.
> If you lived through the socially acceptable era of smoking and chewing you should (without the quotes) have a strong understanding of the FORCES that wanted to continue the sale of this death weed.
And if you studied the failure of alcoholic prohibition, born of the Christian temperance movement, you’d realize how impractical legal prohibition of the substance is and the damaging effects of pushing it underground is.
I never thought and do not now think, that I need to tell women anything about desirability. Science and social study merely informs. What you object to is the information. Now we are at a point that you should (without quotes) support your objection to the studies cited.
Regarding alcohol, it is highly controlled by law. As is human behavior under its influence. Total prohibition did not work. Law has its limitations. I don’t think we need to use law except in the case of dangerous substances. I am not in favor of coercion when education is available.
It is time for you to refute the video with valid studies. Opinion only goes so far.
> Science and social study merely informs. What you object to is the information. Now we are at a point that you should (without quotes) support your objection to the studies cited.
To reiterate what I’ve said before: I don’t object to the conclusions of the study – that birth control can interfere with pheromone-driven attraction. I object to the conclusions that you and the author of the video are drawing from that women should necessarily be concerning themselves with desirability of men.
I don’t think that is the conclusion of the video. The conclusion is in the title, “You deserve to know the truth: Contraception”.
Again you offer tired old 60s propaganda.
I must sign off. Have fun with Stacy.
> Again you offer tired old 60s propaganda.
Curse that feminist agenda of women’s liberation!
Can’t resist one last comment.
I now understand what I have been wondering about. Why your avatar has it’s hand over it’s eyes.
It’s actually a drawing of Picard doing a facepalm, so the meaning you’re taking from it isn’t quite accurate.
It’s unintentional, anyway – it’s the avatar I have tied to my account at Gravatar, which this site apparently uses, so it’s not intended to be a comment about any individual in particular.
The portion of the video that discusses the plausibility of the world’s population fitting to an area the size of Texas contains an error in the audio. The calculated area per person is 1065 sq. ft. For scale, may I point out that this is an area about 32′x32′, or otherwise near in size to an average two bedroom apartment. 1065 sq. ft is equal to .02445 acres (1 acre =43560 sq. ft), approximately 2.5% of an acre. This is NOT 25% of an acre as was spoken in the video.
While I commend and agree with the video in it’s theme that overpopulation is an unsubstantiated myth refuted by current birth rate statistics in modern countries, it is incorrect and frankly implausible to broach consideration of confining the world’s population to a mega city the size of Texas.
So, if we take the most densely populated city in America, Guttenberg, NJ and build 124176.1 of them in Texas, we would use 8.8% of it’s land mass.
Guttenberg 56,878.9 people per 0.19 sq mi
World Pop of 7,063,000,000 / Pop of Guttenberg 56,878.9 = 124176.1 * .19 = 23,593.46
Area of Texas 23,593.46 / 266,874 sq mi = 8.8%
Now, let’s feed them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
http://www.theus50.com/area.php
Ah~ good catch. I noticed, only after you mentioned it, that there was a correction in a little word box in the video.
I suppose a better claim would have been all of the United States. If you count that land mass, then every person in the world would have about a third of an acre.
An interesting article today about the Russian population.
http://tinyurl.com/abhckfm
I have a comment in moderation jail.
And to support the claims in the video: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.html
I’m doing my part!
Pity this discussion didn’t move beyond, “Nuh, uh, women don’t care about men desiring them.”
Ha, the half-time show pretty much blew that one out of the water, obscene as it was. Kind of proved the point of the video.
> Pity this discussion didn’t move beyond, “Nuh, uh, women don’t care about men desiring them.”
No one said that…
OK, you said this:
“I object to the conclusions that you and the author of the video are drawing from that women should necessarily be concerning themselves with desirability of men.”
Let’s just say that your objections aside, women probably do care about that, as evidenced by the effort they put into being desirable. Or whatever.
Can you agree that if the two sexes are not attracted to each other, then there might be fewer children being born.
> Let’s just say that your objections aside, women probably do care about that, as evidenced by the effort they put into being desirable. Or whatever.
Sure, a lot of women care about that. But that doesn’t mean that all women do. While they’ll still likely care about being “presentable” – basic hygiene and the like – I know women who aren’t overly concerned with the impact birth control has on their “desirability” to men, and many more who don’t want kids (or more kids than they already have).
> Can you agree that if the two sexes are not attracted to each other, then there might be fewer children being born.
Sure, assuming that no one else begins having more children (or some sudden strange spike in multi-child pregnancies).
Joshua, what does your knowledge of the attitudes of women you know have anything to do with the understanding of the reality of demographic disasters – except to reinforce the reasons for those problems?
> …demographic disasters…
What are these, exactly?
Goodby Joshua.
So long…?
“Sure, a lot of women care about that. But that doesn’t mean that all women do. While they’ll still likely care about being “presentable” – basic hygiene and the like – I know women who aren’t overly concerned with the impact birth control has on their “desirability” to men, and many more who don’t want kids (or more kids than they already have).”
But hang on a sec.
That doesn’t add up.
If a woman’s starting point is that she doesn’t care about men desiring her, then why does she need birth control in the first place?
Do you also get the point about declining birth rates? That is a serious problem – a fact.
> If a woman’s starting point is that she doesn’t care about men desiring her, then why does she need birth control in the first place?
There are health issues – ovarian cysts, for starters – that can be mitigated and/or controlled by birth control issues. It can also help reduce issues in parts of the world where the likelihood of rape by pregnancy is an actual concern.
> Do you also get the point about declining birth rates? That is a serious problem – a fact.
A problem for who, and what is the exact nature of the problem?
Please tell me you are not suggesting that the main reason women take birth control is for cysts and rape. That is so not true. I think you know why they take it. They take it to avoid pregnancy, because they are…attracting men to do that thing that makes babies in the first place. To suggest birth control is not for controlling birth is outlandish.
“A problem for who, and what is the exact nature of the problem?”
For society. Did you read the WSJ link?
> They take it to avoid pregnancy, because they are…attracting men to do that thing that makes babies in the first place.
Many take it for sex, but that’s not necessarily the only reason they take it. Simply because health issues don’t fit into your narrative doesn’t eliminate them from legitimate reasons to make it available.
> For society. Did you read the WSJ link?
Admittedly, I hadn’t until now, because it didn’t seem attached to any specific point raised. Reading it, though, the thesis seems to be “replacement rates significantly outside of 2.1 are a predictor for national disasters”. I’m sure, then, the author would agree that Sri Lanka, Turkmenistan, Grenada, Jamaica, Colombia, and Libya are well on their way to being world powers[1]. The author has a point to prove, and he, like the author of the video, is over-simplifying or making false causative/correlative fallacies to support the point.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t reproduce. I’m saying that forcing women to have children when they don’t want them is a *bad idea*.
1. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
“Many take it for sex, but that’s not necessarily the only reason they take it.”
Correction: Most, the vast, vast majority.
You were trying to make the point that women who take birth control don’t care about attracting men. Finding a fringe alternative reason doesn’t prove your point. It only further demonstrates it.
“I’m saying that forcing women to have children when they don’t want them is a *bad idea*.”
Good grief, no where in any of these sources or this dialogue has anyone suggested that hyperbole.
Emotional appeals and red herrings aside, it is a fact that populations decline if fertility is below replacement rate. Your link says exactly that.
“Rates below two children indicate populations decreasing in size and growing older. Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years.”
> You were trying to make the point that women who take birth control don’t care about attracting men. Finding a fringe alternative reason doesn’t prove your point. It only further demonstrates it.
> Good grief, no where in any of these sources or this dialogue has anyone suggested that hyperbole.
The fact that you want to ignore the desires people who don’t share your goal of reproduction is evidence a desire to force people into a state of reproduction.
> Emotional appeals and red herrings aside, it is a fact that populations decline if fertility is below replacement rate. Your link says exactly that.
And I’m not arguing against that. That’s simple math. It’s your conclusions – that it leads to national disasters – that’s in dispute. You’re also assuming that the birth rate will continue to decline – extrapolating a recent trend onto a much longer timeline.
“The fact that you want to ignore the desires people who don’t share your goal of reproduction is evidence a desire to force people into a state of reproduction.”
No, you just keep throwing red herrings in the way. This is not an emotional argument, it’s one based on cause and effect. Women, the vast, vast majority, the typical majority, use birth control because, admit it or not, they want to attract men, but they don’t want to get pregnant.
Am I wrong?
“You’re also assuming that the birth rate will continue to decline – extrapolating a recent trend onto a much longer timeline.”
Aha! There it is. Tell me, how do populations projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years turn around the birth rate so that it is increasing?
> Am I wrong?
In that a majority of women use it to avoid pregnancy? Sure. In that that is a reason against its usage? No.
> Aha! There it is. Tell me, how do populations projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years turn around the birth rate so that it is increasing?
Your assumption is that the birth rate is the solution. In light of overbearing population densities and an overburdened and underfunded foster care system right here in the U.S., the better option would be to first look there for means of balancing the replacement rate. Once those issues are resolved, then the birth rate is something to examine.
Joshua, I thought you were just playing a stupid game, you were and I don’t know if you really understood it. It is probably a habit.
But, there is more. The thing that I am understanding reading your back and forth with Stacy, is a stubbornness to your argument that seems to be so deep and concreted that I am not sure you realize it.
The totalitarian proposal that:
The society at large is obligated to provide an expensive or no cost safe and easy method of defeating impregnation. This desire obligates manufactures and distributors. It obligates taxpayers. It obligates teachers to indoctrinate students towards this goal. It obligates us all to ignore anything that might affect the success of this goal.
SCARY S…
Any dislike of this proposal is considered FORCE. Any argument against this proposal is considered FORCE. Any lack of desire to achieve this goal is considered FORCE.
Does all of this sound very familiar?
My proposal gives people the choice of when and how to have kids. You want to remove this choice. That’s a pretty clear example of forcing your view on someone else.
And that’s the second time you’ve insulted me. Try to keep things cordial, Howard.
You don’t have a proposal, you have only the insane desire to push foreward with someone elses view of the “Brave New World”.
You are hung up on the word FORCE. That is the tactic.
Nonsense!!
Thank you for failing to address any points.
Josh,
In the video no one offered solutions. The video is about knowing the truth.
It is true, as you finally acknowledged, that women use contraception to avoid pregnancy. (I don’t why that was so difficult.)
But, contraception makes them less attractive, so (for those majority women) it is actually working against them.
Either way, they are having fewer children.
“Your assumption is that the birth rate is the solution.”
No, it’s just a fact. It is declining and unless something changes, it will continue to decline dramatically.
“In light of overbearing population densities and an overburdened and underfunded foster care system right here in the U.S., the better option would be to first look there for means of balancing the replacement rate. Once those issues are resolved, then the birth rate is something to examine.”
Like what?
> The video is about knowing the truth.
From a flawed and biased perspective, yes (unless we’re considering a link of gay sex and contraception a valid correlation – ha!).
> I don’t why that was so difficult.
It’s not difficult to admit, it’s to avoid the tired framing and slut-shaming that the video engages in by trying to denigrate people who enjoy sex and want to ignore the health benefits of health care (the latter applying to yourself especially).
> But, contraception makes them less attractive, so (for those majority women) it is actually working against them.
So, you agree with the video that more people are having more sex, but they’re not attracted to the women they’re having sex with?
> Either way, they are having fewer children.
And you’re automatically assuming this is a bad thing.
> …it will continue to decline dramatically.
Care to share where this knowledge of the future comes from?
> Like what?
Adoption, obviously.
“From a flawed and biased perspective, yes (unless we’re considering a link of gay sex and contraception a valid correlation – ha!).”
In logic, your emotions don’t matter. You don’t get to just say “nuh,uh” because you don’t like the conclusion. They describe a cause and effect, that is demonstrated in other animals. To effectively refute the argument, as I always say, you have to grapple with the details, not just laugh it off because you don’t like it.
“slut-shaming”
You definitely are overlaying emotions with logic. I never made any judgments. That was you.
“to ignore the health benefits of health care (the latter applying to yourself especially).”
What are you talking about, applying to me especially? I don’t understand.
“So, you agree with the video that more people are having more sex, but they’re not attracted to the women they’re having sex with?”
Can’t know the first, the second is suggested by physiological data.
“And you’re automatically assuming this is a bad thing.”
It is the reason the birth rates are declining. To requote your link: “Rates below two children indicate populations decreasing in size and growing older. Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years.”
“Care to share where this knowledge of the future comes from?”
Your link. It’s simple math. If there are fewer people to reproduce, and if they reproduce at the same rate, then the populated is “projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years.”
“Adoption, obviously.”
They don’t suddenly count children as a birth when someone adopts them. You don’t balance the birth rate by adopting children. They are already born when you adopt them. (I cannot believe I am explaining this.)
Now — how do you propose this declining population be turned around.
> This is not an emotional argument, it’s one based on cause and effect
Correlation does not imply causation. Like I said, if you accept that, you should be equally distressed about the impact the decline in piracy has had on global temperatures.
> You definitely are overlaying emotions with logic. I never made any judgments. That was you.
Are you deliberately ignoring the attempt by the video author to put a negative connotation on people who are “promiscuous”?
> What are you talking about, applying to me especially? I don’t understand.
You don’t want people who have non-sexual uses of birth control to be part of the discussion of the benefit of birth control.
> It is the reason the birth rates are declining.
You’re still assuming that a decline in birth rates is automatically a bad thing.
> They don’t suddenly count children as a birth when someone adopts them.
You’re confusing a replacement rate of a population with a birth rate. If you introduce a child into a population from another population, you’re increasing the replacement rate without having to increase the birth rate.
“Correlation does not imply causation.”
That is one of the dumbest things that atheists repeat over and over, at least in my experience trying to bring them into a discussion. I think you mean one does not “equal” the other, but it would outstanding absurdity to say that no one is never allowed to examine causes and effects and induce relationships. All of the sciences, all of our knowledge, is based on doing just that.
“Like I said, if you accept that, you should be equally distressed about the impact the decline in piracy has had on global temperatures.”
Another red herring. Shiny wrappers blowing across the path don’t distract me.
“Are you deliberately ignoring the attempt by the video author to put a negative connotation on people who are “promiscuous”?”
You see more than I do. I happen to think promiscuity is never good for a person, not because anyone needs to judge that person, but because it harms the person. If you want to debate that, it is another discussion entirely from whether or not contraception reduces the birth rate. Again, it’s a red herring.
> What are you talking about, applying to me especially? I don’t understand.
You don’t want people who have non-sexual uses of birth control to be part of the discussion of the benefit of birth control.
“You’re still assuming that a decline in birth rates is automatically a bad thing.”
No, I’ve quoted your link. You seemed to think it should turn around, so I asked how.
“You’re confusing a replacement rate of a population with a birth rate. If you introduce a child into a population from another population, you’re increasing the replacement rate without having to increase the birth rate.”
OK, I see what you are saying. How is this any different than suggesting that more births would also reverse the population decline? Either way you are relying on people to raise children.
> That is one of the dumbest things that atheists repeat over and over, at least in my experience trying to bring them into a discussion.
I’m intensely curious to find out what you think the reason is why men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women would increase their sexual activity because they have chemical birth control available to them.
> You see more than I do.
I would agree, yes. You’re letting your views of sexual activity color your interpretation of the video, choosing to take its correlation and assign a causation, and then choosing to believe that the end result of that relationship is bad.
> You seemed to think it should turn around, so I asked how.
Human beings are promiscuous individuals, and the desire to reproduce – not just have sex – is a strong one. I know women who are on the pill right now because they don’t want children right now – but they do want to have kids eventually. Myself, I do want kids – someday. For now, I’d rather wait for when I’m ready for that kind of responsibility rather than play a crap shoot on the rhythm method or “pull out and pray”.
> How is this any different than suggesting that more births would also reverse the population decline?
It’s not. The problem is, though, that you think birth control is a bad thing, and that people *other than yourself* shouldn’t be taking it. My proposal – or “Brave New 60′s Propaganda World” as Howard seems to like to describe it
– is that people should have the choice of when and how they have kids – if at all.
Josh,
“I’m intensely curious to find out what you think the reason is why men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women would increase their sexual activity because they have chemical birth control available to them.”
What? Can you quote where I said this? I put up a video and asked if anyone could refute the studies. I know the video draws this conclusion, I’m still waaaay back at step one, the studies.
Having been a woman who used contraception (an experience I’m willing to bet you do not share) I can attest that the claim that they alter a woman’s behavior is true. They are synthetic hormones specifically intended to trick your body into thinking it is perpetually pregnant.
“You’re letting your views of sexual activity color your interpretation of the video, choosing to take its correlation and assign a causation, and then choosing to believe that the end result of that relationship is bad.”
Again, quote me. Or do you fancy yourself telepathic or something?
“Human beings are promiscuous individuals, and the desire to reproduce – not just have sex – is a strong one.”
So are dogs.
“For now, I’d rather wait for when I’m ready for that kind of responsibility rather than play a crap shoot on the rhythm method or “pull out and pray”.”
There’s always the self-control route, something dogs cannot do since they do not possess an intellect. Also, most surprise pregnancies occur when women are using contraception. Relying on it over time actually increases the chances of conceiving.
“The problem is, though, that you think birth control is a bad thing…”
Do you know the health risks of hormonal contraception?
“is that people should have the choice of when and how they have kids – if at all”
I never said otherwise, but I at least think people should make decisions with accurate information. This cultural message that you can totally plan your childbearing years is a lie. The message that children are commodities to be decided upon as if you are deciding whether to get a dog or not, is a shame.
> What? Can you quote where I said this?
You defended the claim of the video linking birth control to homosexuality as “cause and effect”.
> …I can attest that the claim that they alter a woman’s behavior is true.
I’ve never denied this.
> Again, quote me. Or do you fancy yourself telepathic or something?
You’ve stated yourself that people who are “promiscuous” are doing harmful things, and you’ve defended the link drawn between birth control and increased sexual activity – a claim very clearly made in a negative connotation by the video’s author.
> So are dogs.
Can’t say I see the bearing. We’ve got a problem of stray dogs in cities, which is why it’s always recommended that dogs get spayed or neutered – this reality seems something in support of birth control, not against it.
> There’s always the self-control route, something dogs cannot do since they do not possess an intellect.
Given the failure rates of “abstinence-only” sex education and their general inefficacy, celibacy for the general population is an unrealistic expectation. I’d rather focus on a solution that deals with the reality of human sex drives.
> Also, most surprise pregnancies occur when women are using contraception. Relying on it over time actually increases the chances of conceiving.
You got a source for that? There seems to be a number of people who disagree with you[1].
> Do you know the health risks of hormonal contraception?
I’m aware there are risks, yes, though I can’t recite them from memory.
> The message that children are commodities to be decided upon as if you are deciding whether to get a dog or not, is a shame.
Children are a commitment of time, money, and effort. If you’re not considering whether or not you can actually *care for* the child, then you’re doing a disservice to any child you conceive. While there are a lot of emotions bundled up with children, you shouldn’t look down on people who want to actually think it through before having a kid.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy#Causes
“This cultural message that you can totally plan your childbearing years is a lie.”
What??
I did plan my childbearing years quite handily. I had a tubal ligation as soon as I could after I married. The plan was to not have children. It worked out well.
And my husband still finds me very fetching.
I didn’t think you could quote me.
The demographic problem is fairly well-laid out problem. I was hoping for a discussion about the studies — that’s what people do when they want to examine a claim. You jumped right to interjecting your emotions on the issue without even examining the claims, refusing to even consider something that might lead to a conclusion that, from the outset, you will not accept.
The birth rate is below replacement levels. The demographics are shifting (more elderly people, fewer working people, fewer people having children for the next generation). I think it absolutely would be a good discussion to have about ways to address this. Might we make things easier for those who do want to have larger families?
“You’ve stated yourself that people who are “promiscuous” are doing harmful things”
And I stand by it. When you’re ready for a non-emotional discussion about facts, let me know.
“We’ve got a problem of stray dogs in cities, which is why it’s always recommended that dogs get spayed or neutered – this reality seems something in support of birth control, not against it.”
Maybe you don’t, but I have a HUGE problem with equating women to dogs.
And I’m not a fan of AOSE. Next…
“You got a source for that?”
Yeah, I did the math.
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/mathematical-proof-that-birth-control-fails/
“If you’re not considering whether or not you can actually *care for* the child, then you’re doing a disservice to any child you conceive.”
Define “care for”. Please. Children are not dogs either.
—–
I’m having a hard time reconciling your views.
Promiscuity is good.
Contraception is good.
Fix women like they’re dogs.
This equals “thinking before having kids.”
Don’t look down on me.
Those views are precisely what’s wrong with our culture.
> I didn’t think you could quote me.
You agree, then, that the video is incorrect in drawing a link between homosexuality and birth control and infidelity and birth control? You’ve not explicitly said you support the statement, but any time I’ve raised a critique of it, you’ve defended the claim of the video.
> And I stand by it. When you’re ready for a non-emotional discussion about facts, let me know.
If you can actually come up with an cogent argument against people having pre-marital and/or extra-marital sex that doesn’t involve religion, I’d be interested in hearing it.
> Maybe you don’t, but I have a HUGE problem with equating women to dogs.
Not just women, but men, too (and all those who fall in between and outside of those two classifications). People are part of the animal kingdom.
> And I’m not a fan of AOSE. Next…
Not sure what AOSE is.
> Yeah, I did the math.
Citing yourself is cheating.
However, you’re ignoring the definition of typical use:
“Typical use refers to failure rates for women who do not consistently or always correctly use their birth control. These rates usually apply to the average woman as it is sometimes difficult to always and reliably use birth control the correct way”
The problem, then, isn’t the pill, but education about its use and application.
http://contraception.about.com/od/prescriptionoptions/p/prescription.htm
> Define “care for”. Please. Children are not dogs either.
Feed, love, potty train, send to school, clothe, drive to friends’ birthday parties, pick up from school, et cetera, et cetera. I would think, as a mother, you would agree with this.
> Promiscuity is good.
No, it’s *okay*. If someone wants to wait until marriage, or some other form of temporary celibacy, or wants to be celibate for their entire life, that’s fine (as long as it’s their choice and that it’s an educated one).
> Contraception is good.
Again, no. It’s *okay*. Take contraception, or don’t. It’s an individual’s choice, but it should be an educated one.
> Fix women like they’re dogs.
No. See above.
> This equals “thinking before having kids.”
The fact that someone is going to use birth control until they’re ready for children is a pretty good indicator having actually put some thought into it.
Your final statement seems like you’re caught in a false dichotomy of “good vs. bad”. Sexuality is a spectrum, and sexual behavior equally so; monogamous or polyamorous, chaste or sexually active; with or without birth control – these are *options*, and none of them are inherently bad or good.
Here’s one for you Josh:
http://fassyy.tumblr.com/post/42396519142/saucybane
Please. Dogs >> cats.
“Feed, love, potty train, send to school, clothe, drive to friends’ birthday parties, pick up from school, et cetera, et cetera. I would think, as a mother, you would agree with this.”
In the back and forth tidbits covering a multitude of subjects that are each in themselves a discussion, an interesting sentence appears. I suspect a list compiled from expected duties of parenting. And more familiar as coming from a man than a devoted father. Also, very familiar if we add – self interest, anger, arguments, violence, dissatisfaction, ambition, absence, disregard, then ultimately DIVORCE.
As I look back on my three children’s lives and also listen to what they are telling me now what was important to them as a child, but of course they could not articulate as a child, the only thing of importance was and still is, that they were not regarded to be in any way an animal, but, as a wanted person that is “cared for”, not primarily in the mechanical duties of parenthood, but as a valuable part of their parents being. A continuation of life and a fulfillment of design. There is a spiritual quality to human life, new life is the continuation of that quality. As one of mine said of his biological father after spending a little time with him in adulthood; “One day I looked at his eyes and saw a dead person, a lifeless person.”
To “care for” a child properly requires an understanding of life beyond that of a Zookeeper. To understand this essence requires much, much more than the freedom for self indulgence which we have inherited from the modern designers of our society.
Bingo Howard.
Josh, I’ll respond to some of that later, but I gotta tell you something right now…
When someone says that a child is unwanted, it says more about the person saying that than it does the child.
Children >>>>>>>>>> dogs and cats
If atheism has no room for such understanding, you might want to reconsider exactly what it offers you (who are not a cat or a dog).
> When someone says that a child is unwanted, it says more about the person saying that than it does the child.
That they’re possibly willing to consider whether or not they can raise a child, and not succumbing to merely emotional arguments for it?
> Children >>>>>>>>>> dogs and cats
For you, yes. Not for everyone.
> If atheism has no room for such understanding, you might want to reconsider exactly what it offers you (who are not a cat or a dog).
Once again, you’re assuming that someone’s purpose of life should be focused on having children. Try actually considering a viewpoint other than your own. This also has nothing to do with atheism.
Josh,
“You agree, then, that the video is incorrect in drawing a link between homosexuality and birth control and infidelity and birth control?”
I’ve made a claim neither way. I’m just wondering how people refute the studies if they don’t accept them.
The video says that:
1) Artificial hormones suppress pheromone production in females.
2) Pheromones play a role in mutual attraction.
3) Studies have shown in both humans and other animals that suppressing pheromones using artificial hormones decreases the attractiveness of males to females.
4) This makes sense since pheromone production is also suppressed during pregnancy.
5) Thus women using contraception may be less attractive to men.
This has been documented in scientific literature enough to at least consider, to name a few.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091007124358.htm
http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(09)00263-8
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/091007_contraceptives.htm
What part of this do you have a problem with?
I think it’s reasonable to at least admit there may be something to this, as do the researchers, medical professionals, and journalists. There is a physiological pathway defined, observed, hypothesized, tested, and confirmed with evidence in both humans and non-humans.
So far your response has been, “Stop forcing people to want to have babies like you do!!!” I wouldn’t expect a dog to do more than bark if I tried to have an intelligent conversation with him. I expect more from you though.
> I’ve made a claim neither way.
> What part of this do you have a problem with?
The part where I’ve repeatedly said I don’t disagree with the findings of that particular study, yet you continue to ignore the criticism of correlative/causative conflation by the video and instead would rather reiterate one of the few substantive parts of the video.
> I expect more from you though.
And I’ve grown to expect from you an inability to consider or understand why someone doesn’t want children:
“When someone says that a child is unwanted, it says more about the person saying that than it does the child.
Children >>>>>>>>>> dogs and cats”
I’ve been debating whether or not to jump in. I don’t have a lot of time to go back and forth, but here it goes.
The problem I have with the video is that it mixes good information with not-so-good information.
For example, with the homosexual behavior link…the film uses a LOT of good information and studies done over many years to explain how contraceptive use changes men’s perception of women (on contracpetives=not fertile=not as alluring). There have been studies done that show women prefer a different kind of man when she is on birth control, a less masculine male.
However, the film then references ONE study done on ONE primate and his harem and uses it to try to link birth control and homosexuality in humans. The sample size is far too small to make any kind of definitive conclusion about behavior in the type of primate used, much less in humans. It seems the author scoured Google Scholar to try to find ANYTHING to link her ideas together and is banking on people not understanding what is a good study and what is a bad one.
Not to mention, homosexual behavior in humans didn’t begin in the 1960′s, when HBC became widely available. Homosexual behavior exists in the rest of the animal kingdom WITHOUT HBC.
The link just doesn’t fly.
Then we have the population issue. Worldwide, I don’t think we have a population problem in either direction. Here’s a look at how our population has grown:
1B 1830 50,000 years
2B 1930 100 years
3B 1960 30 years
4B 1975 15 years
5B 1989 14 years
6B 1999 10 years
7B 2011 12 years
8B 2025 14 years
9B 2045 20 years -Note, the slowdown *is* due to lower birth rates
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm
We can probably handle a few more billion people. When people talk “over-population” they look at places like Africa and Asia. But, the real problem is getting the resources where the people need them. That is a matter of planning and logistics.
Country to country, there is a demographic problem. There are too many older people and not enough young people in some countries. In other countries, there are too many males and not enough females. These countries either have to adapt or face major challenges. Either the populations will be maintained through immigration (like in the US) or men will go to countries where women are available (like in China, where many are living in African nations and marrying women there).
Either way, the human race has survived with far fewer humans than live today and will do ok with many more. Barring a global crisis (Yellowstone erupting, an asteroid impact, nuclear/bio warfare), humans aren’t likely to go anywhere. Will we lose some cultures? Yes. Will we lose humans all together, very unlikely.
Basically, the video is not very accurate. It ruins its good points by laying on the propaganda, conjecture and junk science too thick. Presenting the truth for someone to make an informed decision is awesome…but you have to actually present the truth! Not some facts spliced with a whole lot of fiction and a LOT of opinion (which I’m not even going to touch).
Chris,
Thank you. This is a good discussion starter, but I know you are busy. I like to discuss things like this because it guides me in doing my own research.
Here’s what I found, in response to your comment.
On the contraception – less attractive to men link: As far as I can find, that was not (as you indicate) the conclusion of a lot of studies over a lot of years. It was the work of Dr. Alverne and colleague Dr. Virpi Lumma at the Department of Animal and Plant Sciences at the University of Sheffield in the UK reported in one paper in 2009, “Does the contraceptive pill alter mate choice in humans?” in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
These are the links I gave Josh:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534709002638
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091007124358.htm
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/091007_contraceptives.htm
It was and still is considered a valid conclusion based on what we know about pheromones and contraception. Pro-contraception advocates argued that, nonetheless, women still find and marry good men. While this may be true in general (it’s true for me, I was contracepting when I married my husband, AND got pregnant while using it!), we cannot ignore the drastic decline in marriage and increase in divorce at a societal level.
So your point about this conclusion in the video being well-supported *because* it is taken from lots of studies is incorrect. A scientific conclusion can be valid for many reasons. Sometimes it is only one landmark study that the scientific community accepts. It’s a logical conclusion with an observed physiological explanation, seen in humans and animals. (I grew up on a farm, it’s true, males are attracted to fertile females.)
So, on the contraception – primate link: You call it into question because the video only cites one study from the 1970′s. Again, like the contraception – attraction link, it is the work of one man (team), but it is landmark research. It was done by Lionel Tiger, the Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University and an expert on the biological roots of human social behavior, he is the author of numerous books. He originated the term “male bonding” and is an advocate for “male studies” departments in universities.
http://bigthink.com/users/lioneltiger
http://evolution.rutgers.edu/ches-faculty-mainmenu-150/lionel-tiger
He devotes an entire section to the study in this book, The Decline of Males: http://books.google.com/books?id=XeEUSocx_YoC&q=austin#v=snippet&q=austin&f=false
I’ve criticized primate experiments when researchers use them to study things about humans that humans can communicate ourselves (like why girls play with dolls), but this research went the other way, consistent with a farm girl’s observations. He observed a trend in humans, he tested it out on animals, the results were consistent. Since we are talking, again, about a physiological pathway (as opposed to intelligence), this is valid.
Professor Tiger saw the males respond in strange ways when the females were injected with artificial hormone drugs (they ARE drugs). The male stopped having intercourse with the females he had a relationship with before, and began to “rape, masturbate, and behave in a turbulent confused manner.”
Yet you say, “The link just doesn’t fly.”
Perhaps you can explain why you would credit one study from 2009 while rejecting a much longer-standing conclusion from a study in the 1970′s from a long-time respected expert in the field? One doesn’t need to “scour Google scholar” to find this information. (BTW, the video cites both.)
As for the link to homosexuality: I find where people said the animals Dr. Tiger studied engaged in homosexual activity, but I cannot find where he said that himself. In the book I linked, he mentions rape and disturbed behavior, aggressive behavior, but not homosexuality. However, in interviews with him (http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26949) and from reading his other writings (browsing) he does draw a link between that behavior and what society biologically pushes a man to do, Darwin-style of course. So the conclusion that vast contraception use by women would push men to biologically act in strange or confused ways, stands.
You said homosexuality has always been around and no one said otherwise. What was pointed out is that homosexual behavior among men has drastically increased with the increase in contraception use. That’s a very reasonable connection, but I suppose one that is open for debate. Studies have shown that rates of battering victimization among homosexual male partners are substantially higher than among heterosexual men.
And to the world population data, until someone can explain why a woman in America ought to fill her body with drugs and contracept just because government in Asia and Africa are corrupt, I’m going to keep on saying “No thanks!” to that for my own body. Yuck! I’m a woman with an intelligence and free will, not a brute animal. I don’t need to be “fixed”, thank you very much.
Hi Stacy,
Pardon if my post is disjointed and a little sloppy. I’ve been adding a line here and there while working and I don’t have the time to pull references and proof-read like I usually do.
There has been a lot of research done on men being able to detect an ovulating woman and body scent attractiveness. It’s not only the 2009 article. And, as you have noted, there are other studies that make HBC/odd behavior connections in animals.
However, if we were just to analyze the 2009 article against the 1970 article, the 1970 article is inferior. It’s not so much the date that makes it so as the sample size used. A sample size of 1 male is insufficent when conducting research. That was one of the first things we learned in prob and stats, and I’ve been doing stats for a long time. So have you. If you think a sample size of 1 sufficent for research…ANY research, please explain. (I’m not being snippy, it would make my life much easier)
Then, there is the stretch of linking behaviors seen in animals to behaviors in humans. Even in lab animals which we have close relationships with, just because a drug has X effect in the lab animal doesn’t mean it will have X effect in humans. When a drug has X effect in lab animals, it is said the drug shows “promise” and it calls for more research and trials in humans. We can’t and don’t assume the drug will have the same exact effect in humans. Why is that stretch ok to make in this case?
In addition, the author of the video would have to show that there was some sort of spike in homosexual/confused behavior in humans in the time since HBC. And, if there is an increase, she would have to show it was an actual increase and not just an increase in reporting due to social acceptance.
It’s not that I think the link the author makes is impossible. Anything is possible with all the chemicals and drugs we use today. However, I don’t think the evidence provided is strong enough to prove a definite link. That will take a lot more research.
As far as the world population goes, as I mentioned…there is no *worldwide* population crisis in either direction. All the rest is white noise.
I would like to see people working on actual solutions; finding ways to build the infrastructes necessary to feed, water and clothe the regions in need.
What reseach are you working on? I am looking into doing a thesis on empathy in humans.
“If you can actually come up with an cogent argument against people having pre-marital and/or extra-marital sex that doesn’t involve religion, I’d be interested in hearing it.”
“The loss of “family values”, or decline of the nuclear family, illegitimacy, teen pregnancy, and increased numbers of single mothers, is also cited as a major cause of poverty and welfare dependency for women and their children.[27] Kids resulting from unintended pregnancies are more likely to live in poverty;[28] raising a child requires significant resources, so each additional child increases demands on parental resources. Families raised by a single parent are generally poorer than those raised by couples.[29] In the United States, 6 of 10 long term poor children have spent time in single parent families[27] and in 2007, children living in households headed by single mothers were five times as likely as children living in households headed by married parents to be living in poverty.[30]”
From Wiki, go ahead, check out the five sources cited. For single women who work full-time year round the poverty rate declined, but I think even with your list of requirement for “caring” for children, this would be difficult for such a mother.
—–
Or, see line 2: Children in single mother families are +5X more likely to live in poverty.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_09_3YR_S1702&prodType=table
“How is this tied to promiscuity?” you might ask.
Promiscuous sexual behavior is the frequent, casual changing of sexual partners.
I.e. — what faithful married people don’t do.
“Well, they won’t have children if they use birth control!” you might object.
See my math.
http://www.acceptingabundance.com/mathematical-proof-that-birth-control-fails/
(And yes, it’s A-OK to link yourself if your math and your sources are right. All I did was extrapolate typical use failure rates.)
I guess what I’d like to know is this: Why would a man argue for birth control knowing 1) that it is unhealthy for women, 2) that relying on it over time almost assures failure, and 3) that children raised by single mothers are much more likely to face a life of poverty?
Seems like a lot to risk just for your own pleasure.
> From Wiki, go ahead, check out the five sources cited.
The causes of which are tied to irresponsible parenting, not necessarily promiscuity.
> See my math.
And your conclusion is predicated on a misunderstanding of “typical use”.
> I guess what I’d like to know is this: Why would a man…
Why focus on my being a man?
> …that it is unhealthy for women…
Does it carry risks? Sure. Is it unhealthy? That’s going to depend on the severity of risks and the net benefits of its use.
> …that relying on it over time almost assures failure…
Again, based on a false predicate.
> …that children raised by single mothers are much more likely to face a life of poverty?
And you’re also assuming that anyone who has a birth as a result of failed birth control is going to be a bastard.
You’re right, Josh. Having sex outside of marriage and having children with unmarried parents are in nooooo way connected. Brilliant!
“And your conclusion is predicated on a misunderstanding of “typical use”.”
No, it isn’t, but it does require a minimal understanding of statistics.
Let me know when you’re ready to not be condescending and are actually interested in having a conversation. As it stands, I’ve addressed each of your points, you’ve failed (either out of refusal to or inability to) address a substantial number of my points.
Joshua, a good example to follow would be ChrisCintheD who tries to address the issues instead of spewing out the first adolescent nonsense that comes into your head.
ChrisCintheD,
“We’re contracepting ourselves out of existence” may be a bit hyperbolic, but does lead us in a thinking direction in order to consider the effects of our social behavior. The problem may be self limiting anyway. As ability to manufacture and purchase birth control products diminishes due to economic hardship, and unless men and women really, really have come to dislike each other, the population will probably start to increase.
As you step back and twice indicate that there is not an overall worldwide population lack, then notice the real needs of people in many areas of the world, I see and interest by you in solving these problems.
What I read as your solution is empathy for the people in need and/or planning and problem solving to meet these needs. The problem that is presented to us is, unless human beings change drastically in there nature, the only way this can be done is centralized planning and execution. Hoping that what drives the planners is empathy. The history of the world says that this is not possible in a political context.
As the world sits, each country has autonomy within it’s own borders for economic planning and societal behavior. Economic health in a free market economy depends on a growing population free of a large shared debt burden and micro-management by government. The total world population is irrelevant except to count the numbers of needy. Without the benefits of Western industrialization and research and marketing, existing in an economically healthy country, the rest of the world cannot benefit – because that is the direction help flows. If the “from” country is in decline, the “to” country suffers.
The desire to eliminate religion from our lives is an exacerbation and, in my view, with the proper application of Christianity’s teachings, the only possible attempt to find a solution to all of the problems we are discussing.
The problem that is presented to us is, unless human beings change drastically in there nature, the only way this can be done is centralized planning and execution. Hoping that what drives the planners is empathy. The history of the world says that this is not possible in a political context.<<
Part of the problem is that people also assume that our "global" economy is right for the world, when this global economy has inflamed many issues. To be competitive globally, we have seen countries keep their currencies artificially low to keep labor cheap and business coming. We've seen companies abandon factories in their own countries, where people could make a living wage, and ship the work to countries where wages are low and standards of living are lower. We build massive farms for cash crops, rather than crops that will support the regions they reside in. We build cities in the middle of deserts, draining mighty rivers to quiet streams. Why? Because we can and because we can make a profit. Not because it is the best way for humans to live.
You are absolutely right, it would take a DRASTIC change for humans to again think about sustaining what they have and being self-sufficient, rather than always having more, more, more, more, more.
Change drastic and otherwise is what the Church has always been after in the human condition. Would we be accused of “Theism” if we applied the words of Pope Pius XI addressing what is known as the Catholic “Principle of Subsidiarity”:
“When we speak of the reform of institutions, the State comes chiefly to mind, not as if universal well-being were to be expected from its activity, but because things have come to such a pass through the evil of what we have termed “individualism” that, following upon the overthrow and near extinction of that rich social life which was once highly developed through associations of various kinds, there remain virtually only individuals and the State.”
“As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.”
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11QUADR.HTM
Could we agree:
that many (if not most) medications carry some health risks?
that we are not animals, so we can remove the foolish monkey study?
That much of what was said in the little video, outside of the main study about was hyperbolic?
Yes I watched the whole thing. I ignored quite a bit of it as well.
Finally a question. What is the point of the video? That artificial contraception is bad and should not be used by any woman?
We can all agree that:
the population of the world continues to grow?
That indeed we would not be comfortable if all the persons of the world lived in Texas?
Yes replacement rates are not being met. This may not necessarily be a bad thing, and it it appears to be so then we as humans will probably address such issues.
In my opinion people having less children is more a product of affordability and time rather than women choosing less masculine men to have babies with.
Alan,
“that many (if not most) medications carry some health risks?”
Yes, contraception can wreck a woman though. I used it for years, it well-known among women how drastically it affects your body and mood. I am at considerably greater risk for cancer now because I used it for so long. I never knew. It was just what everyone did.
“hat we are not animals, so we can remove the foolish monkey study?”
I mentioned above that I never found where the researcher said the monkeys exhibited homosexual behavior, just aggressive and confused. I saw that much on a farm growing up. We can agree the video makes a leap, as yet supported, that contraception causes homosexuality.
“What is the point of the video? That artificial contraception is bad and should not be used by any woman?”
I think so. The main supporter of the idea that contraception messes up societal relationships came from that man who did the monkey study. He has some good arguments for how it affects a society if all the women are contracepting.
“the population of the world continues to grow?”
I’ve never really been worried about overpopulation, as evidenced by my seven children.
“That indeed we would not be comfortable if all the persons of the world lived in Texas?”
Yes, they were wrong about that but corrected it.
“Yes replacement rates are not being met. This may not necessarily be a bad thing, and it it appears to be so then we as humans will probably address such issues.”
I hope so. To bring it down to a personal level, it’s a family with one child and aging parents. Who will take care of the parents? How will the child begin his own family if he’s taking care of the parents? There are hurdles, it will be harder, but maybe it can be done.
“In my opinion people having less children is more a product of affordability and time rather than women choosing less masculine men to have babies with.”
I agree. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to have concern over having more children. It ain’t easy. Or cheap.
Stacy you wrote
“We can agree the video makes a leap, as yet supported, that contraception causes homosexuality.”
I assume you meant to say “as yet unsupported”?
Are you attempting to claim that at some point there may be support homosexuality being caused by artificial birth control?