no, because irrational slavish adherence to totally outdated religious beliefs takes precedence over common sense and what is best for our planet EVERY time.
2007-10-20 08:23:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Lady Morgana 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
One of the things that many people don't seem to understand is that humans aren't the only thing that stresses the planet's carrying capacity. Humans aren't far away from what our current technology can support feeding (I think with current estimates, we've got room for another 2 billion). Not to mention a whole ecosystem can collapse if the right (or wrong) species goes extinct.
Birth control (meaning abstinence, NFP, birth control pills, condoms, diaphragms, etc.) is the best way to answer the problem. Not by governments only supporting families with one or no kids, which only increases infanticide. Not by abstinence-only education, which only increases pregnancy and STD rates.
Birth control pills are NOT a form of abortion! They prevent the egg from releasing. Sperm can't reach the eggs in the ovaries, folks! And even if the female taking it is doing a so-so job and the egg is released, it keeps it from ever implanting, ergo, there was no pregnancy to abort.
Yeah, there's massive amounts of land that isn't populated. Guess what? You fill that with people, you still have to feed them. The other animals waltzing around the planet need food too. People aren't alone.
2007-10-20 00:19:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by 雅威的烤面包机 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
There already are for birth control to be not just morally justifiable but morally essential.
Any rational analysis of history shows that when human populations outstrip their resources you get wars, genocides and the collapse of societies.
Over the past couple of centuries the inroads made on some of the major causes of human mortality have resulted in explosive growth, because such advances have not been paralleled by reductions in the birth rate.
Simple mathematics, which some Churches refuse to acknowledge because of untenable out of date attitudes to human sexuality
2007-10-20 00:26:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I would agree with you, but there are so few churches that expressly forbid birth control. My church is one of the more conservative, and we permit birth control. However, you could be right about that, it comes down to how many people are members of the catholic church.
Now, I would like to make the argument that the key to contorlling the world's population is for the churches to spend some of the massive fortunes they have on relief in places like that. Seriously, you could ahve the most beautiful cathedrals in the world, but could that money be spent else where and do much more good? That, my friend is the question.
2007-10-20 00:22:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I think it is evil to oppose birth control. It essentially tells women "risk having nine months of pregnancy, excruciatingly painful labor, and 18 years of raising kids full time," every time you have sex. Not to mention the risk of STDS. In Victorian times (still romanticized by some), husbands were notorious for patronizing brothels and prostitutes.
A few women are deluded enough to believe in a lifetime without contraception, but most of us know better and want to have some control over our own lives. We also don't like to have our life decisions at the mercy of a man's genitalia, especially when some cultures (see Saudi Arabia) prize the patriarchal "head" of the family at the expense of women.
Atticus Finch: Birth control is not abortion. What planet are you from?
2007-10-20 00:16:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dalarus 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
My religion is ok with birth control but people still have lots of kids. I would say most people have at least 3 or 4 kids in my church, but I can think of one family with 9 kids and several families with 7 kids. I will say that the family with 9 kids doesn't believe in birth control, but one of my bfs has 7 kids and she got pregnant with 3 of them despite birth control!
2007-10-20 00:13:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by gumby 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
247 people die every minute from AIDS, just in sub-Saharan Africa alone.
Quite a few of these people are of religions which prohibit birth control such as condoms.
So in places like Africa, you end up with the problem that there are not only too many children, but they end up orphaned because their parents died of AIDS or they end up with the disease too.
Atticus Finch: I understand what you mean. But what happens if a married woman is really, really fertile? Is she just suppose to keep popping out babies until she hits menopause? Or are her and her husband suppose to abstain permanently when they've had too many kids?
What about a child who is born HIV positive? Is he or she supposed to never marry or have sex?
2007-10-20 00:20:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by . 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
some churches are more interested in increasing their numbers (and resultant income and power) than the welfare of the planet. I don't think they will ever condone birth control
2007-10-20 00:16:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by Nemesis 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
I totally agree, I'm sick of those Christian World Vision adverts ( get them over here non-stop on tv ) about supporting a poor child in Africa somewhere because we all know where the money actually goes and the only way, though it will be hard work is sterilizing every african.
Feck off christian thumb-downers!
2007-10-20 00:44:57
·
answer #9
·
answered by ♆Şрhĩņxy - Lost In Time. 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Isn't Catholicism the only major sect that condemns birth control? Most catholics use it anyway.
2007-10-20 00:16:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋