Overpopulation: A Consequence of Not Enough Birth Control?
Here’s a STORY
about some Catholic dioceses, numbering over 40, filing a lawsuit
against the government of the United States. In a nutshell, the dioceses are claiming that the current Obama administration and requirements for birth control coverage infringes upon their religious beliefs. This is not a new argument. Science vs Creationism is as old as the hills. But let’s take a look at one aspect of this: religious belief and the consequence of population growth.
As you’ve found out by reading the blog on this site, we like to cut to the chase. No circumlocution and not too much suggestive language in the guise of questions. So let’s start straight. Birth control stops babies from being born. Fact. Over-population is threatening our earth. Fact. In the not-too-distant future, we will not have enough resources to feed, clothe and give shelter to everyone. Fact. As the internet grows more pervasive, more information is available to everyone and more and more people are going to want the standard of living available in most “Western Countries”. Fact. The want of that standard of living requires huge amounts of natural resources. Fact. When you are hungry, it’s hard to practice religion. Fact.
So if we follow this line of reasoning, it’s clear these lawsuits
really leave something to be desired. Of course we don’t have the in-depth details, but it’s pretty clear that science and religion still have not found a way to integrate. It seems reasonable to allow religious freedoms of belief; that makes sense. Religious freedom has its place, but unfortunately, starvation does not. Is it better to put children on the earth, for the sake of not using birth control, than it is too watch them starve? You would have to be a pretty stubborn person in order to watch children starve for the sake of an ideology.
The Obama regime was called “oppressive” in the article. Nothing against those making these decisions to write that but isn’t forbidding the use of birth control as equally oppressive? Isn’t that like the pot calling the kettle black? There are two sets of rules here, one church-oriented and the other, administrative. The individual must choose what is right for her or him.
The bottom line is that sex is natural. What isn’t natural is starvation. You won’t stop sex (nor should you try), but you can stop starvation and over-population
. For someone without resources to support children to be told not to use condoms or oral contraceptives or whatever prophylactic, defies the common sense of personal survival. And if a person can’t survive, who will be there to practice religion? Nobody.
In any case, religious freedom is a right, absolutely. But once again a lawsuit
of this nature underlines the need for a stronger integration between science and religion.
About the Author