Question about a pro-death argument...

[derrick09]

Hey everyone, since today's Super Bowl Sunday and we all plan on seeing that nicely done pro life ad that's being done by Focus on the Family it made me think about the main pro death or pro choice argument that I happen to have the most trouble with and that one is about the earth's overpopulation. Pro choicers claim that if people keep having childen eventually we will run out of both space and resources to comfortably hold such a large population. I was curious how do you all respond to this argument? I've heard a few responses from folks like Kent Hovind who claim that the earth is still more than large enough to hold the earth's current population several times over, but comming from a YEC I wonder if it holds much weight. Let me know what any of you all can come up with. Anyway, thank you for your time and God bless.

[DannyM]

http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2008/07/1 ... populated/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1

Good links on the issue. The second link is four pages of indepth analysis on the issue.

[derrick09]

I just saw the Focus on the Family prolife ad just alittle while ago during one of the first commercial breaks and from what I saw they REALLY had to water it down to make it PC enough. I guess it really shows how much power and money these pro death organizations and supporters have currently , but the last time I checked we certainly outnumber them quite a bit.

[derrick09]

Oh, Thanks for the links there Dan.

[chance]

We can fit everyone on earth into the state of Texas pretty easily. The earth is not becoming overpopulated - the problem is how we utilize the space we have been given and the resources. Hopefully, some of those children being born will be the ones to help us better use our resources

The population problem is easily solved though - sex leads to pregnancy. If people don't want kids, or we think that there are too many, educate folks about this and make birth control readily available to those seeking it - as Jesus would say, be in the world, not of it - even if you don't agree with what others do in such regards that does not mean you can or should ignore it.

The Lord, throughout the OT and even NT helped others to realize that there is a whole world outside of our church and our ways, ignoring such things or trying to control them through laws and such just won't work (never has, never will).

Recognize others don't have the same values and beliefs as you (or I do) - then look at societal issues from that light, and solutions will be a bit more abundant. What is good for the 'gentiles' as it were are not always things we agree with but may well, in fact, solve both the issues they face and we in some way face as well.

We cannot, ever, force others to our way of thinking/life through legislation.

Sorry - was getting a bit off track there At any rate, population explosion is not an issue - but is used as one to stoke the fear of 'end of the world' from people wanting to control the lives of others (and the worship of Gaia if you will) and their choices.

Jesus and the Father gave us choice - and I for one support the freedom of people to make choices.

[derrick09]

That's a great response you gave, something I was wanting to ask you about however is about birthcontrol pills. From some not all but some pro life advocates are against birthcontrol pills or any form of birthcontrol. They claim that it kills a developing human. Now we know that it kills the physical "stuff" that makes the physical part of the human being but the big question is, by the time the medicine gets to the physical stuff is that physical stuff already a human being? Also if we find out that it does, what would then be the back up plan to help control population? The only thing I can think off right off the bat would be abstinance, which wouldn't set well in most people's minds since after all people want their hot, nasty sex. But if you know of anything different please let us know. Thank you again for your time and response.

[chance]

Well there are a few things to look at here:

1. Those within the church (or a church/group) can look at things differently with respect to themselves versus those outside the church. To wit - if you choose to join a group and restrict your freedoms based on certain beliefs you should be free to do. That is about being in the world and not of it (Jesus did not tell others to take over the Roman empire and change the laws - he told people to change their own actions).
Basically - if YOU and those in your group think birth control causes moral problems for whatever reason you have the right to teach that to one another and kick out those who are in your own group who don't agree with such views.

2. The real question, from a moral point of view (not scientific here), is when does life begin? But that question does not exist in a vacuum. Take for example if you tell someone not to run out into the street without looking both ways, and then they do - who is responsible if they get hit by a car? The parent/Friend (God in this case) or the person who ignored the advice and the risks?
When it comes to pregnancy/std's a simple education can show people what risks (I don't mean to call pregnancy a risk, but it fits in a generalized sense) are involved in having sex then now the onus is on them to avoid 'risks'.
How does birth control factor in now? It is a method to avoid risk exposure - like an insurance policy. You decide to risk something because it feels good and invest in methods to make such enjoyment mostly risk free.
Going through the bible one can see a lot of sage advice (Shell fish in the OT and it's prohibition for jews was more practical than anything, there was no way to refrigerate such things and living in the desert you can see how easily it could cause a lot of illness/death/suffering by promoting eating it). Given that today such things are not an issue many Jews (unless Orthodox) don't have an issue with eating lobster and shrimp.

Expand that thinking to birth control. Before modern times pregnancy was much more mysterious - if a woman got pregnant and had a miscarriage within a month or so of conception many may not have even realized they were even pregnant. The concept, in our modern sense, of birth control did not exist back then so there was no real need to address it. IF it had back then, and it made sense to limit population (like it made sense then not to eat shellfish) one could imagine the common sense advice would be 'unless ye wish to be with child do not have sex, and if ye do so to please your husband he or you must use protection' ---and that leads to this:

The whole abortion argument - if you don't want a child, don't have sex because it can lead to one. If you want to have sex though, and don't want a child, use birth control - from which one might extract a more exacting response to your question:

---Birth control methods that destroy an embryo at any stage could be seen as a person's attempt to reverse the consequences of their actions versus preventing the condition in the first place. Why should some form of life be destroyed by you when you could have prevented it's existence in the first place?

For ME - personally? Society can have such things legal, etc - not my business. What I do, how I live, is between me an God. If people want to use such birth control methods, that is between them and God, none of my business to legislate how others live. Never has worked, never will.

[chance]

PS - on a moralistic side note: God could have destroyed his creation, us humans, as we proved to be a real pain in the wazoo and one could argue that in such an early stage of existence we were but babes in the womb.

Instead, he decided to let us keep going and instead died for us - because we did not ask to be created.

[jlay]

In some cases the pill can and does abort a fertilized egg. It prevents the lining of the uterus from receiving the fertilized egg, and it is aborted by the body.

"Some forms of contraception, specifically the intrauterine device (IUD), Norplant, and certain low-dose oral contraceptives, often do not prevent conception but prevent implantation of an already fertilized ovum. The result is an early abortion, the killing of an already conceived individual. Tragically, many women are not told this by their physicians, and therefore do not make an informed choice about which contraceptive to use."
Source: http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prol ... ions.shtml

Our doctors are misleading and in some cases lying to women. When I found out, I asked my wife to address this with her OB/GYN as she took the pill. He didn't deny it, and couldn't as it is a fact of science. But instead dismissed it as no big deal. We immediately repented of using the pill and have not since.

Expand that thinking to birth control. Before modern times pregnancy was much more mysterious - if a woman got pregnant and had a miscarriage within a month or so of conception many may not have even realized they were even pregnant. The concept, in our modern sense, of birth control did not exist back then so there was no real need to address it. IF it had back then, and it made sense to limit population (like it made sense then not to eat shellfish) one could imagine the common sense advice would be 'unless ye wish to be with child do not have sex, and if ye do so to please your husband he or you must use protection' ---and that leads to this:

This borders on historical snobbery. No question our modern technologies allow us to know more about pregnancy than ever before. But many of our ancient ancestors knew more than you give them credit for. Sadly, we know that abortions murder a human life, yet they are more requested and offered than anytime in history. So who is really smarter?

[zoegirl]

That's a great response you gave, something I was wanting to ask you about however is about birthcontrol pills. From some not all but some pro life advocates are against birthcontrol pills or any form of birthcontrol. They claim that it kills a developing human. Now we know that it kills the physical "stuff" that makes the physical part of the human being but the big question is, by the time the medicine gets to the physical stuff is that physical stuff already a human being? Also if we find out that it does, what would then be the back up plan to help control population? The only thing I can think off right off the bat would be abstinance, which wouldn't set well in most people's minds since after all people want their hot, nasty sex. But if you know of anything different please let us know. Thank you again for your time and response.

That physical stuff is genetically, physically distinct and human. It contains the 46 chromosomes....it is ridiculously complex and even at hours and minutes after conception organizing itself into the proper arrangement of cells.

It is not some amorphous blob that at some point magically converts to the 46 chromosome containing baby.

As far as birth control...there are plenty of contraceptive options: (contraceptive is technically different from birth control), abstinence, condom, diaphragm.

Every person who engages in sex must realize that at t he heart of it, the events are there to provide the mean for a conception...bottom line....you could get pregnant if you have sex. Every method of contraception or birth control can fail.

Between my sister-in-law and my sisters and me, we could provide an example of someone we know who has used every know contraception or birth control (including the pill) except perhaps a vasectomy where they eventually conceived on it. And these weren't "planned" accidents.

Those people you talk about are big boys and girls (or at least should be) who can keep their pants zipped. We are not animals who cannot control themselves, despite want they may think.