Gender-based abortions

Have a look at this. Fascinating, especially as the "Feminist movement" has managed to (probably inadvertantly) imperil "womankind" in China and India.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30155400/

The pro-abortion camp doesn't give a hoot.

And just what is the anti-abortion (pro-life) camp’s stance on this problem?

China imposed strict birth controls in the 1970s to limit growth of its huge population, noting that resources, especially land, were increasingly strained and that changes were needed in its new push to modernize. The government says the controls have prevented an additional 400 million births in the world's most populous country of 1.3 billion.

Do they give a hoot?

If for the past forty (40) years there was a “no abortions” policy then China’s population would now be well over the two billion (2,000,000,000) mark, ….. maybe as much as 2.5 BILLION by now.

Does not any of the anti-abortioners (pro-lifers) think about or even consider the dangers to all of humanity if the “Population Bomb” continues unabated to increase in size and destructive potential?

One should learn from history, ….. not ignore it.

The effects of the overpopulation of Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries is quite evident and well documented. It fostered a mass migration to North America which resulted in an almost complete annihilation of the indigenous people and their culture.

And currently, excessive populations of Mexico and other countries have resulted in a second wave of mass migrations into the United States. And no one needs to remind the anti-abortioners (pro-lifers) about the problems this has caused and/or is responsible for.

But they really need to be reminded of said because with their “tunnel vision” they never seem to think about it or even consider the ramifications of their actions.



.

Sam,

First of all, birth control is another matter than abortion. Neither Stephanie nor the Sheik (nor anyone else here that I know of) opposes birth control. The issue is abortion, not preventing pregnancies. I am all about preventing pregnancies.
Second, while I am not convinced that population control is as urgent as you suggest, the answer would never be killing children. In Sao Paolo and Rio de Janeiro, there have been problems with killing street children. That is not the answer to overpopulation in Brazil.

SheikBen wrote:Sam,

First of all, birth control is another matter than abortion.

Only if you make a distinction between letting something die and killing it.

.

SheikBen wrote:Sam,

First of all, birth control is another matter than abortion. Neither Stephanie nor the Sheik (nor anyone else here that I know of) opposes birth control. The issue is abortion, not preventing pregnancies. I am all about preventing pregnancies.
Second, while I am not convinced that population control is as urgent as you suggest, the answer would never be killing children. In Sao Paolo and Rio de Janeiro, there have been problems with killing street children. That is not the answer to overpopulation in Brazil.

So what is the answer in a country wherein the predominant religion prohibits pro-active birth control?

Ziggy,

Most Brazilians are not observant, and the Roman Catholic church within it has been notably liberal since the 1980s.

So does the Roman Catholic Church no longer oppose birth control in Brazil?

Did not the Pope, in a 2007 visit to Brazil, decry contraception as a threat to the future of Latin America?

Sam,

When have you ever heard me speak out against birth control? As Mike pointed out, there is a huge difference between birth control and abortion. For decades the Chinese government has been dragging pregnant peasants from the fields and forcing late term abortions on these women.

Ziggy,

18 years ago after the birth of my daughter my then husband had a vasectomy. Back in those days I was a practicing Catholic and when I went to confession I told the priest what he had done at my insistence. He told me that is not a sin to prevent bringing children we couldn't care for into the world, or to conceive and then pay somebody to murder the child while in my womb and the vasectomy may be some sort of "sin" but something easily forgiven. Catholics the world over have been practicing birth control for a very long time. The Pope teaches the ideal, but he'll be the first to tell you he never expects people to be able to live up to perfection.

Steph, I don't think I ever have.

Catholics the world over have been practicing birth control for a very long time.

And it is not accepted by the RC Church. They aren't going to excommunicate you for it but it is considered sinful.

The ONLY method that the church approved of for a long time (and still may) is the "rhythm method".

TerryRC wrote:Catholics the world over have been practicing birth control for a very long time.

And it is not accepted by the RC Church. They aren't going to excommunicate you for it but it is considered sinful.

The ONLY method that the church approved of for a long time (and still may) is the "rhythm method".

So what?

I hate to come late to the discussion but I'm pretty sure that all abortions are gender based because only one gender gets pregnant. But that's just me...

This is from the textbook "Comparative Politics Today" by Almond, Gabriel, et al.

"The Catholic Church in Brazil is caught between fighting to defend church teaching on artificial contraception and to defend life. When the president of Brazil's National COnference of Catholic Bishops was asked in Frebruary 2005 about the church's position on the free condom distribution during Carnival, he said only, 'The church does not want to arm wrestle with the government.'"

So what?

Really? You really don't see the relevance of my statement?

My time may be being wasted here.

Terry,

What difference does it make what the Pope says is or is not sinful? The Pope recognizes the fact that people are sinners. He expects them to sin. He has an army of priests across the globe offering up quick and painless absolution for minor transgressions such as birth control.

I believe you are a former Catholic and know that every bit as well as I do. Catholics from Argentina to Zimbabwe know it too.

Now the Catholics in Argentina did not have to adhere to the "No meat on Fridays - fish only" ruleing when it was in effect, at least during the 1950's onward ..... and I don't know when they were actually absolved from complying with said.

cheers

What difference does it make what the Pope says is or is not sinful? The Pope recognizes the fact that people are sinners. He expects them to sin. He has an army of priests across the globe offering up quick and painless absolution for minor transgressions such as birth control.

Are you teen and young adult years so far behind you?

Guilt and embarrassment can be a powerful tool at that age.

I know some hardcore catholics that, even in this day and age, refuse to use birth control.

I'm pretty sure condoms were illegal to sell in Ireland until the 80's or early 90's.

The situation is not as simple as you make it sound, Steph.

TerryRC wrote:
Are you teen and young adult years so far behind you?

Guilt and embarrassment can be a powerful tool at that age.

I know some hardcore catholics that, even in this day and age, refuse to use birth control.

I'm pretty sure condoms were illegal to sell in Ireland until the 80's or early 90's.

The situation is not as simple as you make it sound, Steph.

Hey, no picking on my age!

I don't know any Catholic that refuses to use birth control young enough to require it. Roman Catholics regularly do all kinds of things viewed as "sins" by the Roman Catholic Church. They have premarital sex, divorce and remarry, engage in homsexual activity and other "sinful" behavior. The Catholic "sinners" engaged in these activities have no qualms about using birth control, Terry. The "hardcore" Catholics have little need for birth control because they are either celibate or in a monogamous marriage.

The "hardcore" Catholics have little need for birth control because they are ............................................. in a monogamous marriage.

My paternal grandparents had 9 children. My parents had 7.

And my wife's parents had 17- same mother, same father, monogamous marriage.

Why would those in a monogamous marriage need birth control any less that those couples "living in sin"?

ziggy wrote:

The "hardcore" Catholics have little need for birth control because they are ............................................. in a monogamous marriage.

My paternal grandparents had 9 children. My parents had 7.

And my wife's parents had 17- same mother, same father, monogamous marriage.

Why would those in a monogamous marriage need birth control any less that those couples "living in sin"?

What I'm trying to get Terry to acknowledge is that the Catholics he is referring to are all too old for it to matter.

My paternal grandmother had 8 brothers and sisters, she was the youngest and the only one still alive. Her late husband was one of 16. They had 5 children (notice the sharp decline) and all of them are practicing Catholics. 4 of them married and not one of those couples had more than 3 children.

Perhaps the reason so many of our grandparents and previous generations had so many children had less to do with religious convictions and more to do with the fact that the most reliable method of birth control was "jerken and squirten."

What I'm trying to get Terry to acknowledge is that the Catholics he is referring to are all too old for it to matter.

Oh. If you mean that people past child bearing age- whether monogamous or prolifically multi-partenered- have little or no need for birth control, then yeah, I reckon' so.

Aaron wrote:Perhaps the reason so many of our grandparents and previous generations had so many children had less to do with religious convictions and more to do with the fact that the most reliable method of birth control was "jerken and squirten."

Dad told me that in the early part of the 20th century it was unlawful for a physician to counsel sexually active patients- including married couples- about how to avoid pregnancy. Had my parents had access to effective "birth control", it is likely that my two younger sisters and I would never have been conceived.

A world with no Ziggy? Who could even conceive of such a thing?

No, not really.

First of all, it is my belief that people with mulitple sex partners, and folks with partners who have mulitple partners, should use condoms.

What Terry is trying to tell me is that the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope are using fear and humiliation etc to prevent the use of birth control by Catholics. I disagree. I don't think even the most devout Catholic fears the Pope or the Church itself. They no longer fear the loss of heaven and/or dread the pains of hell because no matter what Terry says, the Catholic Church of the 21st century has changed with the times, as the new Act of Contrition itself demonstrates.

Now Terry and I both know there remain Catholics who would not disobey the Pope to this day. What I'm saying is all, or nearly all, of those alive today are either celibate because they are priests, nuns, and brothers who have taken a vow of celibacy or they are so old they will not become pregnant.

A Catholic so devout they are unwilling to defy the Pope when it comes to birth control is not going to have multiple sex partners.

Certainly there may be married devout Catholics young enough to reproduce. However, if they aren't going to use birth control they sure as hell aren't lining up for abortions.