Over Population versus Divine Providence

As we go round and round about Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, it occurs to me that the key question is fundamentally about whether or not America (and the world) trusts in God’s Divine Providence enough to enact moral laws that go against rational thought. It occurs to me that all Pro-Life arguments are illogical and irresponsible if the fundamental premise of the Pro-Choice ideology which denies God’s Divine Providence is accepted as Truth.

The fact is that most arguments that the Pro-Choice camp asserts are very logical and generally responsible. The arguments of the Pro-Life camp can be demonstrated illogical and irresponsible given the fundamental premise of the Pro-Choice camp. That premise is that if there is a God, we the people are to plan our world without any expectation that Divine Providence will intervene on our behalf. God has set the world in motion, and it is up to us to make it work for us the best we can.

It is like the old lifeboat question. Will we be saved? Must we ration our resources? Will there come a point that we must ask volunteers to jump overboard? Will we have to vote to see who we will forcibly throw overboard? Should we hang tight and wait for a saviour?

The Pro-Choice ideology seems closely coupled with poverty and environmental concerns. For practical reasons, it has defined the pre-born human being as not a citizen with the fundamental human right to life. Given concerns about population control, quality of life over quantity of life, and children born to poor families, it seems practical to allow a mother to make the tough decision to abort the unwanted child rather than neglect the child. A neglected child will ultimately be a burden to our social system as a child and as an adult.

The Pro-Life ideology has this to say about the over-population concern: “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.” It says that the pre-born child is a sacred responsibility, not a choice. It says man must overcome completely his natural animalistic, biological imperative to reproduce freely and without undue concern to consequences.

The fact is that the Bible says: “Be fruitful and multiply”. No messenger from God or Marian apparition (that I know of) has ever countermanded that directive. The idea of limiting family size is man’s idea only, near as I can tell.

Go back to the lifeboat analogy. Let’s say that those in the lifeboat despair of being saved and start to make some of those tough decisions. A few sacrificed themselves and jumped overboard. Later, some hard choices were made by the many against a few who were denied their right to life. Then a saviour came and became very angry because his own sons and daughters had been among those forcibly thrown overboard. No survivor in the lifeboat could deny the fact that they had committed murder against the saviour’s sons and daughters. Their only defense is that they did not trust that their saviour would come.

The question always comes up as to whether Christians should vote to thwart others who are weak in faith or do not share our faith in Our Saviour. Go back to the lifeboat again. If among the many who murdered the few, there were those among the many who voted against forcibly denying the few their right to life, then how do you think Our Saviour would handle them?

Environmental Puritans.

I believe that the secular humanist, atheistic / agnostic, religion (yes, religion) what drives the Pro-Abortion advocate on what they believe is the moral high ground. They are in fact Environmental Puritans.

They reject marriage as an institution. As atheists or agnostics, they believe it to be man-made social institution. To them, sex for humans should be no less natural than sex for animals. The God-fearing view that sex is for the marital bed only is considered a man-made restriction that is unnatural when compared to other animal species in our ecosystem. Sex should be free like the animals, the consequences of which can be eliminated by contraception and abortion. There are no sex taboos, and all sex expressions should be socially accepted and tolerated. Abortion is the secular humanist’s SPCA answer to the human puppy mill.

They are seriously concerned about over-population causing world hunger. They are concerned about the quality of life over the quantity of life. They want to limit family sizes to two children. If over-population is perceived as a current problem, then forced abortion and euthanasia policies may be necessary. They hope to avoid getting to that point by a propaganda campaign that encourages freely chosen ‘safe sex’ contraception, backed by abortion, and gay life styles.

They are concerned about the physical betterment of the human species, using lessons learned in breeding animals as applied to the human animal via the science of eugenics. They want to get rid of the bad genes and only breed the good genes. Extreme eugenics subscribes to the cleansing of the races or the ‘master race’ syndrome. Abortion caters to the cleansing of the races mentality by suggesting that a mother should abort her baby if there is an indication of “down syndrome” or other inheritable undesirable condition. Also,they encourage abortion if the family is poor and the unwanted baby may end up neglected due to circumstances.

I do believe there is a twinge of conscience about third trimester abortions for all but the most hardened Pro-Abortion advocate. I’ve often wondered how Pro-Abortion people think. Yes, there are those who just want to do what they want to do, regardless of morals. But there are those that think that it is the “responsible” thing to do, the “lesser of two evils” in an unwanted pregnancy. Most do not think that third trimester (and beyond) abortions are OK. But that first trimester is just maybe morally OK, given the “lesser of two evils” argument. If you do not believe in God, you might argue that the feti have no real pain centers, no sentient self-aware mental faculties. The death is maybe not so painful. That maybe the fetus is just a “blob of tissue” as I have heard it referred to.

Secular Humanism is a STRANGE GOD in our Temples.

What is a strange god? The Old Testament is replete with exhortations against strange gods and idols which compete with the beliefs of the chosen people of the God of Isaac and Jacob. Big taboo on those man-made idols. But what is an idol but the visible symbol of an ideology and set of practices of the religion, some of which may be compatible with God’s true practices but others are a direct contradiction. It is a perversion of fidelity, and such a betrayal is deeply offensive to God precisely because it is so destructive to his people. In a society that does not separate Church from State, mixing religion & politics with the religion & politics of foreigners is forbidden. No multiculturalism in the temple. It always results in the chosen people being overtaken by foreigners as chastisement from God until his chosen people return to the pure faith.

Secular Humanism attempts to be responsible moral Humans without reliance on Divine Providence and intervention. It has creeped into Catholic culture as a hedge against the remote possibility that God will not intervene in time as our world population grows to unmanagable levels. We are on a lifeboat called earth with a certain number of people growing at a certain rate with limited boat capacity and limited resources to feed the hungry. Secular Humanism, which is logical, does not allow for God’s Divine Providence. Secular Humanism is today’s “strange god” that has infiltrated the Catholic Church and offers libations to Ishtar, the goddess of fertility, and offers holocausts via immolation by fire of our owns sons and daughters, rendering our temple worship unacceptable to God.

Where am I coming from? The Pharisees and Scribes could cite chapter and verse of any Old Testament like any good “solo scriptura” Protestant today. They knew what Jesus was alluding to when He overturned the money-changers tables with the words:

“My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.
<refer to Isaiah 56,7>
But you have made it a DEN OF THIEVES.
<refer to Jeremiah 7,11>”

Chapter 56 of Isaiah is all about how all are welcome in the house of the Lord. How it is to be “inclusive” in modern parlance.

Chapter 7 of Jeremiah uses the term “den of thieves” and is all about when a temple of worship is not acceptable to the Lord and is liable to severe punishment (as at Shiloh). It is about the deceit of the faithful(?) who think that they will be saved because they put their faith in “This is a temple of the Lord! A temple of the Lord! A temple of the Lord!”, but their behavior as good as says “We are safe. We can do these abominations again.”.

Chapter 7 of Jeremiah goes on to cite some SPECIFIC ABUSES of temple worship, including:
(1) worship of Ishtar, goddess of fertility - a competing religion and “strange god”
(2) holocaust of their own sons and daughters by means of immolation by fire.

These abuses pertain to us today via:
(1) Secular humanism and our current sex permissive and obsessive society.
(2) Abortion - the immolation of our own sons and daughters.

The Murder of the Innocents.

In my opinion, much confusion about the politics of the abortion issue could have been avoided if the Catholic Church in the USA had decried loudly the crime of abortion from the pulpits. A lesson could be learned in decrying the gravity of the abortion issue from this excerpt from a secular book now in the public domain and published in 1920. It is instructive of the common understanding of this issue was way back then.

A Guide to Purity and Physical Manhood
Advice to Maiden, Wife and Mother
Love, Courtship, and Marriage

and J.L. NICOLS, A.M.


  1. MANY CAUSES.–Many causes have operated to produce a corruption of the public morals so deplorable; prominent among which may be mentioned the facility with which divorces may be obtained in some of the States, the constant promulgation of false ideas of marriage and its duties by means of books, lectures, etc., and the distribution through the mails of impure publications. But an influence not less powerful than any of these is the growing devotion of fashion and luxury of this age, and the idea which practically obtains to so great an extent that pleasure, instead of the health or morals, is the great object of life.

  2. A MONSTROUS CRIME.–The abiding interest we feel in the preservation of the morals of our country, constrains us to raise our voice against the daily increasing practice of infanticide, especially before birth. The notoriety that monstrous crime has obtained of late, and the hecatombs of infants that are annually sacrificed to Moloch, to gratify an unlawful passion, are a sufficient justification for our alluding to a painful and delicate subject, which should “not even be
    named,” only to correct and admonish the wrong-doers.

  3. LOCALITIES IN WHICH IT IS MOST PREVALENT.–We may observe that the crying sin of infanticide is most prevalent In those localities where the system of moral education has been longest neglected. This inhuman crime might be compared to the murder of the innocents, except that the criminals, in this case, exceed in enormity the cruelty of Herod.

  4. SHEDDING INNOCENT BLOOD.–If it is a sin to take away the life even of an enemy; if the crime of shedding innocent blood cries to heaven for vengeance; in what language can we characterize the double guilt of those whose souls are stained with the innocent blood of their own unborn, unregenerated offspring?

  5. THE GREATNESS OF THE CRIME.–The murder of an infant before its birth, is, in the sight of God and the law, as great a crime as the killing of a child after birth.

  6. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY.–Every State of the Union has made this offense one of the most serious crimes. The law has no mercy for the offenders that violate the sacred law of human life. It is murder of the most cowardly character and woe to him who brings this curse upon his head, to haunt him all the days of his or her life, and to curse him at the day of his death.

  7. THE PRODUCT OF LUST.–Lust pure and simple. The only difference between a marriage of this character and prostitution is, that society, rotten to its heart, pulpits afraid to cry aloud against crime and vice, and the church conformed to the world, have made such a profanation of marriage respectable. To put it in other words, when two people determine to live together as husband and wife, and evade the consequences and responsibilities of marriage, they are simply engaged in prostitution without the infamy which attaches to that vice and crime.

  8. OUTRAGEOUS VIOLATION OF ALL LAW.–The violation of all law, both natural and revealed, is the cool and villainous contract by which people entering into the marital relation engage in defiance of the laws of God and the laws of the commonwealth, that they shall be unencumbered with a family of children. “Disguise the matter as you will,” says Dr. Pomeroy, “yet the fact remains that the first and specific object of marriage is the rearing of a family.” “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth,” is God’s first word to Adam after his creation.

  9. THE NATIONAL SIN.–The prevention of offspring is preeminently the sin of America. It is fast becoming the national sin of America, and if it is not checked, it will sooner or later be an irremediable calamity. The sin has its roots in a low and perverted idea of marriage, and is fostered by false standards of modesty.

  10. THE SIN OF HEROD.–Do these same white-walled sepulchres of hell know that they are committing the damning sin of Herod in the slaughter of the innocents, and are accessories before the fact to the crime of murder? Do women in all circles of society, when practicing these terrible crimes realize the real danger? Do they understand that it is undermining their health, and their constitution, and that their destiny, if persisted in, is a premature grave just as sure as the sun rises in the heavens? Let all beware and let the first and only purpose be, to live a life guiltless before God and man.

The Murder of the Innocents (continued)

  1. THE CRIME OF ABORTION.–From the moment of conception a new life commences; a new individual exists; another child is added to the family. The mother who deliberately sets about to destroy this life, either by want of care, or by taking drugs, or using instruments, commits as great a crime, and is just as guilty as if she strangled her new-born infant or as if she snatched from her own breast her six months’ darling and dashed out its brains against the wall. Its blood is upon her head, and as sure as there is a God and a judgment, that blood will be required of her. The crime she commits is murder, child murder–the slaughter of a speechless, helpless being, whom it is her duty, beyond all things else, to cherish and preserve.

  2. DANGEROUS DISEASES.–We appeal to all such with earnest and with threatening words. If they have no feeling for the fruit of their womb, if maternal sentiment is so callous in their breasts, let them know that such produced abortions are the constant cause of violent and, dangerous womb diseases, and frequently of early death; that they bring on mental weakness, and often insanity; that they are the most certain means to destroy domestic happiness which can be adopted.
    Better, far better, to bear a child every year for twenty years than to resort to such a wicked and injurious step; better to die, if need be, of the pangs of child-birth, than to live with such a weight of sin on the conscience.

Environmental Puritanism is an accurate descriptive term.
Environmental fascism also comes to mind, but is a less kind description.

I do not find the pro-choice arguments to be logical or responsible. What I see is a tendency towards civilizational death.

And the phrase which increasingly and with worry, comes to mind, is that which was said by Mother Teresa of Calcutta:

“The fruit of abortion is nuclear war.”

This from a tiny plain spoken nun.
If you want peace, work for life.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta’s statement worries me too.

It seems that all great human rights violations end in bloody wars. We had slavery, and a Civil War. Germany had their holocaust, and World War II. The other day I received a DVD about the radical Muslim threat. I don’t know whether to believe it or not, but the message was very scary for America.

The thing about the Pro-Choice view - those that are not ghouls, but believe in abortion in the early stages only - is that they believe that the early stages of life are without pain centers of the brain, and the fetus is not self aware. Therefore, to have an abortion is not a terrible thing. They have an SPCA mentality about human life. If you are not going to take care of the puppy, then you should get rid of the puppy. If your belief in God is in question, then this is not a big deal and is considered a humane decision (applied animal ethics).

In some cases, it is a eugenics (selective breeding) mentality. Witness the aborting roughly 90% of all down syndrome diagnosed cases. I met a lady who had been advised that her pre-born had down syndrome, but she accepted the child - turned out to be normal.

i think one reason for the secular humanist attitude is that they tend to view the poor as liabilities (instead of people who are loved and created by god) who need food, water, shelter etc. once they are born, we have an obligation to provide it them because most forms of secular humanism is driven by utilitarian morality. this might be difficult if there are not enough resources to fulfill these ethical obligations.

regarding the life boat analogy… it is partially correct, and i support population control because i do not think anyone will voluntarily kill themselves by jumping off. it does not make any sense to criticize advocates of population control for not taking an “early departure.” all we want to do is merely promptly prevent the unpalatable application of life boat ethics.

The lifeboat analogy is an imperfect one. Trying to keep within the framework of the analogy, though, I might say that the Pro-Choice perspective of “jumping off” might be the Catholic teachings only acceptable answer to controlling population - Abstinence from sex. There are very strict rules about sex in the Catholic teaching. Sex is for monogamous man-wife marriages only and must be accepting of children. Natural Family Planning - that is sexual relations during infertile periods in the woman’s cycle - is permitted when there may be periods in a married couples life when children might be over-burdensome, but that is it. Contraception is not allowed. It is a very hard discipline, especially in today’s social environment in the USA & elsewhere.

Catholics are to put their trust in God’s Divine Providence. As we watch the world population grow with our mandate to feed the poor, our faith waivers. We are asked to hang tight in the lifeboat and wait for Our Saviour’s coming.

It is a big bet - our faith. Defies logic to one who doesn’t believe. Irresponsible to one who doesn’t believe.

Whoa…that hasn’t been my experience, at all. Atheists and agnostics can be profoundly moral people and the fact that we are discussing humanists means that these individuals value humans.

As for “over-population”, this is an artificial problem. There are more than enough resources in this planet to feed, clothe, house and care for all of its inhabitants. What we lack is the political will to do so. And this lack of effort is just as much caused by “religious” people as by “non-religious” people.

For the present, I agree that “over-population” does not exist today. I have an atheist Chinese brother-in-law who is a very respectable, moral individual in my estimation, but he firmly believes that abortion was necessary in his country. He felt that over-population was a real issue because there is such a small proportion of fertile land, most of it not farm-able.

Many Pro-Life activists attempt to discredit the notion that we could ever have an over-population issue, but I believe the math says otherwise. Even with sickness & disease, war & pestilence, I think our population will ever increase to the planet saturation point where there may be a physical problem (not society / government artificial problem) to adequately feed our population.

My point, though, is that the over-population is not our issue, but God’s domain. Same for the having of children - we should be open to children and open to God’s will in all things. Again, its a big bet - a leap of faith - that all are invited to accept in the name of Jesus.

I definitely agree that God, and faith, are necessary to work these things out.

If Mother Teresa is right, overpopulation may be the least of our problems.

In the developed nations, at any rate, underpopulation is rapidly becoming a problem. A nation which cannot sustain its population at least at a replacement rate will not long survive.

The fruit of abortion is nuclear war.

I personally fear that radical Muslim influences in the Arab world will gain momentum and result in an all out jihad holy war against the Jewish state in Israel and a World War with Western culture and specifically the USA. To the religious state that is the Muslim country, Western culture and its free sex culture & infanticide values is the STRANGE GOD in their temples. We will follow the same course that the Jewish people followed in terms of chastisement by Our Creator for allowing STRANGE GOD in their temples. For the OT Jew, it was competing pagan religions. For Americans, it will be secular humanism - the no God religion.

why do those who buy the over-population myth always target the poor, saying there are too many of them; why don’t they initiate genocide against the rich, who after all leave a much greater carbon footprint

You are indeed correct… I think it would be harder to raise increase the average standard of living if there were more people on Earth. Too many rich people on Earth. And too many poor people aspiring to be rich people. This does not bode well for the biosphere.


How is it we can send men into outer space, invent new ways of growing food, clone animals for meat, invent materials to build with. Yet, we are helpless to solve these problems and must resort to murder of each other? :banghead:

God must prefer us ignorant and unschooled if this is what we do with a little knowledge. :shrug:

Eugenicists (selective breeding applied to humans) would claim that if only the “responsible” and “superior” people limited their family sizes and were careful in selecting their marriage partners, then the “irresponsible” and “inferior” would continue to procreate and soon overrun the former in society. Hence, the idea of the cleansing of the masses or “master race” syndrome. With easy access to abortion, especially in poorer neighborhoods as in the cities, some of this effect can be eliminated on a volunteer basis.

It is interesting that in the early years of promulgating the eugenicist ideals, one’s selection of marriage partner was recommended to consider whether or not your intended had any family history of an undesirable inheritable medical problem. Also, it promoted the idea that marriage partners should voluntarily abstain with natural family planning from relations during fertile periods as a moral obligation if one could not afford to educate the child.

If you look up the book mentioned earlier in this thread at www.gutenberg.org - Search Lights on Health: The Science of Eugenics - you will see that it reflects common Christian attitudes of the 1920s. It promoted abstinence, sex only within marriage, limited family size using Natural Family Planning. It decried strongly against contraception and abortion. It was concerned about population control and healthy offspring - i.e. quality of life over quantity of life.

I find myself thinking that the Amish life style is closer to the Christian ideal than any other. With all our technology, life seems over-complicated and jobs seem contrived to alleviate unemployment due to mass-production. Do we really need the plethora of financial, legal, and psychological social working services? What about all the excessive sex preoccupation so prevalent in our society today? Do the developed nations suffer from just too much leisure & idleness? I sometimes wonder.

No, I think if God had preferred us that way, he would have arranged it so. He wants us to use our mastery of the world to better care for brothers and sisters. I think our record is mixed, but we are doing a better job than, say, 1000 years ago.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.