Nancy Pelosi is absolutely correct. The Catholic Church believed the

Soul did not enter the body until the time of quickening-when the fetus

starts to kick hard well into the four month of pregnancy-until the 16th

or 17th century. The Church then changed its mind when a lot of

members suddenly became Protestants. The change was not due to

theology but Church politics-if you cannot recruit more members to the

Church then force existing members to have more children!

Also, as a member of Negative Population Growth, I would like to

point out that the Catholic Church's position on birth control is very

irresponsible and could lead to the extinction of most life forms on

this planet. Environmental scientists are in agreement that the most

people earth can hold is 3 billion yet we are approaching 7 billion.

The resulting overpopulation is causing the ecosystems of the

earth to rapidly collapse. Global warming alone could heat

the earth to temperatures above those at which the human race can

survive and the dinosaurs of old may re-inherit the earth.

Finally, the Catholic Church's teachings go against 10,000 years

of European traditions admonishing people to live in balance with

their surrounding ecosystems. As an amateur archaeologist, I am very

aware of the fact the Celts, the dominant culture in Europe north of the Alps

from 600 B.C.E. to 100 B.C.E., used natural herbs to abort during times of

starvation so children would not be born only to starve to death, a very

unpleasant death. The remaining food could then be used to keep a smaller

population healthy and strong. These earlier cultures always saw morality

as a series of very complicated choices with no easy, black and white answers

and requiring very careful consideration of all possible actions and outcomes.

The Catholic Church's insistence on a cooker cutter or rule book approach

to morality is appalling and flies in the face of long standing European

traditions!

... the dinosaurs of old may re-inherit the earth.

Yes. Yes, that's exactly what may happen, especially if Jeff Goldblum's experiments with dinosaur DNA bear fruit.

anxiousmofo:

... the dinosaurs of old may re-inherit the earth.

Yes. Yes, that's exactly what may happen, especially if Jeff Goldblum's experiments with dinosaur DNA bear fruit.

Heh.

I just want him/her to show me the documentation on that 10,000 years of european traditions...

'Carrying Capacity' vis-a-vis humans is a touch subject, and There is by no means a consensus as to what the number are. Some say 2 billion, some say 6 billion, some say 40 billion... It all depends on how, and what, you allocate.

Here's one should anyone care to tackle it:

It has been estimated by several survivalist and naturalist groups that it takes a minimum of 4 acres of productive farm land to support a healthy standard of living for each individual on earth. This includes all necessities food,clothing and shelter.

Nanotech:

Here's one should anyone care to tackle it:

It has been estimated by several survivalist and naturalist groups that it takes a minimum of 4 acres of productive farm land to support a healthy standard of living for each individual on earth. This includes all necessities food,clothing and shelter.

That's a claim with no practical value.

How did they arrive at their 'estimate'? Did they all work together to arrive at it, or did each reach the same conclusion separately? Or, more likely, did ONE group make the claim and the others took it up?

Define 'productive'. Is that 1400's Japan productive, 1800's US, 2008 China?

Define 'healthy'.

No matter what the numbers are. Looking at it from a more human (unfearful) angle, those of us that are now inhabiting this planet, are not getting on very well! We are greedy and uncaring of others of The Mother Earth, disrespectful of anything but what money can buy and then, because we bought it, think that we have the right to do with it as we will. I dislike all this scaremongering about the end of the world and all that , I do not deny it though. We, most of us do not need as much as we have, stop buying etc etc etc and start sharing more. Start making do with what we have and yearning for more/better. Be content with what we have and our neighbours?

IIRC, the canonical penalty for abortion has changed, as biology has been better understood, but intentionally procured abortion has never been anything but condemned. One can find that in the Didache, which I think is first century.

Of course one can disagree on whether RCC teaching is irresponsible (hey Ron & Horus :)), but that teaching is not to have as many kids as possible in as short a time as possible. A catholic is called to discern his/her responsibilities to God, their spouse, their existing family, and the society in which they live. Application of those factors is left up to the couple. I find this tremendously humbling and empowering as well.

white light:

No matter what the numbers are. Looking at it from a more human (unfearful) angle, those of us that are now inhabiting this planet, are not getting on very well! We are greedy and uncaring of others of The Mother Earth, disrespectful of anything but what money can buy and then, because we bought it, think that we have the right to do with it as we will. I dislike all this scaremongering about the end of the world and all that , I do not deny it though. We, most of us do not need as much as we have, stop buying etc etc etc and start sharing more. Start making do with what we have and yearning for more/better. Be content with what we have and our neighbours?

And I think your viewpoint is overly driven by the fear-based media. Turn off the tube and get out among rural folks. While there are still a few miscreants there, for the most part they are good, honest and decent people, not at all like you describe people above. And the best part, nation doesn't matter. Every country I've been in (several) has been like that once you get out of the cities.

I do not have a TV and I do live in the country, in a tiny village. I know that most people are loving and sharing and kind by nature. I think that most of us have over the years been forced into fighting for the wrong things and yes the tide is turning. I am sorry if I sounded moalising, didn't mean too. I was talking on a more genaral rather than personal level.

...that Church policy is not, so far as I know, to "have as many kids as possible as fast as possible."

That is, however, the practical effect of encouraging folks to marry, touting the benefits of family, and prohibiting any form of workable birth control.

Fortunately, many Catholics simply disregard Church teachings on birth control and use it, anyway. A case of the membership being wiser than the leadership, surely.

Hey, Horus, I guess it usually only takes us the minimum of two posts to get to the agreeing to disagree stage. have a good weekend.

Why can't you even say where you disagree with Horus?

Did you see the Pope in Brazil about 7 months ago? He telling them to NOT have sex and to NOT use birth control.

They all love him but they were all laughing at him at the same time by ignoring his insane teachings. But the Pope could care less that people get aids and have too many kids they cannot support as long as he retains power over the sheep.

So lets hope Horus is right and that most Catholics ignore the RCC teachings and are therefore being kind and loving to mankind and this planet.

Jazz, you're killing me! OK, I'll give it a shot. Number one, as I posted above, RCC does not say "have too many kids they cannot support." The couple is to discern what they are being called to do, considering the following factors. One, what God wants them to do; two, their respective obligations to their spouse/their spouse's existing responsibilities; three, their responsibilities to their existing family; and four, their responsibilities to society. It should seem obvious that if one cannot afford to feed another child, the couple is not called on to have another. Likewise, if the couple or a spouse is overwhelmed with the responsibilities of caring for the existing family (maybe a special needs child, maybe caring for an aging parent, or just worn out from the demands of parenthood at the time), the couple is not called to have another child.

Really the basis of my objection was the term "workable" in describing the birth control that RCC sees as consistent with our dignity as persons. Modern fertility awareness methods are effective at postponing pregnancy. If you want the citations, jazz, let me know. I know the work of Petra Frank-Hermann concludes modern methods are effective, and as far as I know, she is a secular researcher - - I've only seen her cited in the mainstream media. Modern methods do require abstinence for a certain time, and perhaps that's what Horus meant. It's also basically free and has no side effects. So for especially poor areas, it would seem appropriate.

I am aware that you will find other studies/citations that will question the effectiveness of fertility awareness. I think many are supported by the drug companies, who obviously have an interest against this. Nonetheless, there are numerous studies that conclude it is effective when the couples are properly trained and motivated.

Beyond that, we get into the whys and wherefores of RCC thought, and I've generally found that my posts on those topics a) get really long and probably somewhat hard to read due to my limitations as a writer and b) usually either go unresponded to or result in vehement responses (not from you or Horus). If I don't think I'll have time to do it justice, sometimes I won't get into it, and last night was one of those times - - we have a mountain of laundry that needed folding, and my bride was at a meeting.

So, am I coming out of the wimp category, or merely taking the bait?

Yes, you are clearly OUT of the wimp category! I was only interested in your POV which you spell out here.

I do have to question your first point; One, what God wants them to do;

Now I'm agnostic but regardless so I don't even know what 'god' is but I do know what it means to Catholics especially latino ones. There was a talk show were Mexican Catholics called in on the topic of 'how many children should one have' and caller after caller said it was 'up to God'. When the host would ask a caller 'well who should provide for these kids' the callers would say 'society' since it wasn't up to them to have kids but 'god'.

In Mexico men take advantage of women, especially their wifes, by:

1) Demanding they do NOT use birth control. (of by using force, e.g. hitting them!

2) Having sex with them when they want to (thus the natural methods that DO WORK when used correctly thus do NOT WORK!).

3) Work harm the women if she even considered an abortion.

AND the RCC does nothing but say it is god's will.

These Mexican men are just following the lead of a men lead, men controled RCC. If the Pope was a women then maybe the RCC would be an organization I could respect.

Turn off the tube and get out among rural folks. While there are still a few miscreants there, for the most part they are good, honest and decent people, not at all like you describe people above.

No offense, but I find the passive implications here about city dwellers a bit . . . despicable. I allow that I might be misreading you, of course.

Get out among the city folks, and you'll find that, but for a few miscreants, even the most cranky and malcontented among them are also honest and decent people, people who work their asses off.

Moreover, while rural communities tend to be where material amenities are brought to fruition, cultural canon arises almost entirely in urban areas. Therefore, human survival--which requires material goods, and also requires building on traditions of human ideology, technology, and philosophy, which requires cultural accumulation--needs both rural and urban influence (not to mention the benefits, with regards to energy consumption, of population density, which presumably benefits even those in less dense areas).

I think we can still look to white light's point to illustrate how, at root, most organisms--human or otherwise--seem hard-wired for conflict . . . but also for resolution.