By Hilary WhiteLONDON, July 15, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The solution to global warming, says a UK charity, is to implement laws that would result in people having fewer children. Governments should put slow pressure on people to limit their offspring to one or two children to save social and…
Governments, indicated the organization, should implement a “society-wide process of agreement, internalisation and normalisation” to the idea of small families and use a series of “gentle nudges” rather than “hard shoves,” to get people to conform to the new childless paradigm.
No matter what it is called, it is still coercion. The population control crowd is no better and, is some instances, worse than terrorists. The people must be eliminated, using legal and nonviolent means, from any influence in society before they destroy mankind which is their ultimate goal.
Maybe this thread, and any other thread on the population control genocide, should be placed in the “War on Terrorism” forum.
The solution to global warming is to have fewer politicians…cuts the hot air down dramatically. :mad:
I don’t think it’s anything at all like terrorism… the fact is, our population has been growing exponentially in recent history, and we’re fast approaching the mark where we simply won’t have enough room and resources even by a third-world standard.
It saddens me, too, to know that we are so quickly approaching K as it were. But the responsible thing to do as stewards of the Earth is to take care of it, and to take care of our brothers and sisters in Christ – the other inhabitants of this planet. Having just one or two children still means a LOT of people, especially as death rates continue to decline, but it does mean that the growth curves will slow down and eventually level off within a couple of generations.
This isn’t some draconian ban on reproduction (as with China’s one child policy) or a public sterilization campaign (as was practiced in India and even in the US to some Native Americans), nor does it mandate contraceptions and abortions. It calls people to be responsible about the consequences of sex, which should always be the possibility of reproduction. Granted, sexual relations between a husband and a wife are a very beautiful and even holy thing…but we are also called to exercise chastity.
The long and the short of it is, I think that people are being far more fearful than they need be. We’ll have to reduce the rate at which our population is increasing or we shall, inevitably, reach a point at which we cannot sustain life. The population reduction can be done easily and gradually as suggested above, or it can occur naturally, as happens with other populations when they reach their carrying capacity… there are marked reductions via disease, starvation, et cetera.
GOTTA LOVE IT!!!
No right to life
Right to murder and genocide
Something is is wrong with this picture.
It’s like we’re in 1930’s Germany. :mad:
Over population is just a MYTH/
No, it’s not… it is a scientific and sociological fact.
It seems people always seem to see *people *as the real problem. I wonder why?
Because it is ingrained in the leftist mentality. The more people there are, the harder it is for them to fool and control the masses.
Anyone know of any information issued by the Vatican about such movements? This automatically makes me think of China penalizing couples monetarily for having more than their allotted share of babies. I can’t imagine the strain that would put on a Catholic couple, who are called to be open to life but then are fined by their government for doing so. Yes, I know the article talked about using persuasion and not enforcement, but its not a far jump to think they might be working towards that.
I didn’t say people were the problem. People are lovely. The problem is that we don’t have enough resources to keep growing forever. Levelling off the population isn’t any more anti-people than the Church is (ie,not at all) ;people will and should be able to live long and fulfilling lives…no one is going to be killed or sterilized or even forced to wear a condom. If people decide that they are going to limit the number of children they have to do their part in slowing the population, then that’s a laudable thing. It’s not any different than prayerfully deciding with your spouse that your family is sufficiently large; you can still practice NFP or be abstainent, you’re not obligated to have so many children that you’re forced into poverty. With the world family though, having that many kids isn’t just poverty-inducing, it’s actually fatal.
This is a Catholic understanding of these issues?
A private decision to space children for just reasons is one thing. Claiming there is an over population problem and people should consider limiting child birth is an entirely different issue.
Can you give us any proof the Church has said it is legitimate to limit family size based on the propaganda in the OP?
It’s the view of a Catholic, which is a bit different.
I don’t see the conflict at all. What I do see is irrefutable scientific evidence that we need to consider our population’s growth rate; whether or not the Church has published a specific document on that is unknown to me. Much as I hate to say it, it would not surprise me if the Church’s position contradicted that of science… it would not be the first time, and I doubt it shall be the last.
I don’t see the conflict at all. What I do see is irrefutable scientific evidence that we need to consider our population’s growth rate;
whether or not the Church has published a specific document on that is unknown to me. Much as I hate to say it, it would not surprise me if the Church’s position contradicted that of science… it would not be the first time, and I doubt it shall be the last.
The Church speaks on moral issues. She has never erred.
Then why are countries such as Russia, Japan, France, Italy and Germany as well as Korea, and Australia giving incentives for more couples to have more children due to population decline? We need to trust in God’s plan as well as respect the beautiful earth He gave us as our home. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!
Don’t worry, my husband and I are doing what we can to make sure there’s no population decline here
Many would disagree.
The sheer number of people who disagree with something does not have any effect upon it’s veracity. There are a lot of people who believe that evolution is a myth; just because there are a lot of people with no scientific education doesn’t make them correct.
Yes, she does speak on moral issues, but she has spoken on scientific issues (and scientific issues as they relate to moral issues) as well. I refer you to the famous case of one Galileo Galilei, who was greatly criticized for his views on heliocentrism. We now know him to be correct, of course, and the Church admitted that she had erred in 1992.
Unfortunately, as great and wonderful as the Church is, she does make mistakes from time to time. Not everything the Church says and does is ex cathedra, it’s not all perfect. Crusades, inquisition, et cetera… those were moral issues, albeit a long time ago, but not something we can forget, and something for which the Church has rightly apologized.
Then why are countries such as Russia, Japan, France, Italy and Germany as well as Korea, and Australia giving incentives for more couples to have more children due to population decline?
It’s those specific countries that are experiencing population decline; certainly it is not the case of many other counties, especially those in Africa and the Middle East. It is not correct to pick parts from the whole and say that because they differ, the claim is incorrect. The discussion was on the population of the world as a whole, which is growing exponentially.