Stimulus Package Takes Aim at Babies

Stimulus Package Takes Aim at Babies
by Candice Watters on 01/26/2009 at 11:59 AM

As if the billion dollars stimulus package isn't boondoggle enough, now it's proposing a strange cure to what ails our sluggish economy: more contraception. In defending the addition of birth control funding to the economic "stimulus" plan, a Democratic member of the House said on This Week with George Stephanopoulos,

Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

Yes, there's a lot of bad news about babies being born outside of marriage. And yes, those out-of-wedlock births do cause a strain on state budgets. But this proposed solution to that problem is straight from the Planned Parenthood playbook. And it's no solution at all.

In a 2005 column in The Washington Post, Economist Robert J. Samuelson explained why the opposite is true:

It’s hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling. Europe as we know it is going out of business.... Western Europe’s population grows dramatically grayer, projects the U.S. Census Bureau. Now about one-sixth of the population is 65 and older. By 2030, that could be one-fourth and by 2050, almost one-third.

According to the Demographic Winter website,

By the mid-point of this century, 16% of the world’s population will be over 65. By 2040, there will be 400 million elderly Chinese.

If present low birthrates persist, the European Union estimates there will be a continent-wide shortfall of 20 million workers by 2030.

Who will operate the factories and farms in the Europe of the future? Who will develop the natural resources? Where will Russia find the soldiers to guard the frontiers of the largest nation on Earth?

Who will care for a graying population? A burgeoning elderly population combined with a shrinking work force will lead to a train-wreck for state pension systems.

This only skims the surface of the way demographic decline will change the face of civilization. Even the environment will be adversely impacted. With severely strained public budgets, developed nations will no longer be willing to shoulder the costs of industrial clean-up or a reduction of CO2 emissions.

This "solution" to our economic "crisis" will have the opposite effect. But even that's not the worst of it. In striving to bolster our contraceptive culture, Congress would deny millions of women the very choice that has brought leaders like those supporting this bill the most joy. Ironically, the very politician whose quote appears above once proclaimed, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom."

We've seen this before. Hostility toward babies born in less than ideal circumstances. It's the mindset of Pharaoh. The mindset of Herod. And to what end? If this plan succeeds, who won't be born? Babies like this one.

Politics | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Kit said the following at 12:20 PM on Jan 26:

This is not the only thing being proposed. It is only part of the solution, not the entire solution.

And babies born out of wedlock, unwanted, DO cause lots of financial stress on people. That's a fact. Isn't it better that we provide birth control rather than abortion?

I know abstinence is the best policy, but the reality is, that doesn't happen. And so we need to tackle the situation somehiow.

2. Craig M. said the following at 12:21 PM on Jan 26:

Great site--very saavy and addressing a very important reality. Only one question--has Mark Steyn seen this yet?

3. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:25 PM on Jan 26:

I really liked that last link you provided.

That being said, I really can't stand that this discussion has to take place.

4. Adam said the following at 12:33 PM on Jan 26:

This is a fairly classic tactic. Let's do something now that will save money in the short term. Then in the long term, we will pay more money because of the consequences.

Instead of spending some money short term, we could subsidize kids a little less in this country. Let's look at the "average" kid.

$18,000 in child tax credits
$10,000 (guestimate) in tax reductions
$100,000 for school expenses

These are probably absolute minimums for what the government (including federal/state/local) chips in for the average child assuming no welfare/wic/medicare/food stamps/etc.

I don't know what the government output is for the average welfare parent, but I'm sure it adds a very substantial amount. Pelosi's proposal is meant to provide cheaper birth control access to people that would likely end up on welfare if they have a kid.

Comparing this to Pharaoh or Herod seems rather unfair because we are not dealing with mass execution. It is giving women a voluntary, inexpensive way of dramatically reducing the chance of having a child. It's not the forced sterilization such as was practiced by the United States before it spread to Nazi Germany. Congress is not denying anyone a choice - as a matter of fact, it may actually be allowing for more choice.

Personally, I don't have a big moral or ethical problem with what Pelosi is proposing. I think it is short-sighted because of potential population shrinkage. I can't help but think that welfare and school reform might do a better job of helping state deficits a little more though.

5. Sara said the following at 12:34 PM on Jan 26:

"Why billion dollar stimulus packages aren't boondoggle: an illustration from a true story"

There was a babysitting co-op of 20 mothers where each mother was given 10 babysitting coupons. If you babysat for another mother, they gave you a coupon, and if you wanted a coupon, you had to babysit for someone else. Everything in this economy went perfectly: supply and demand were balanced, and mediated by coupons. But then summer holidays drew nearer, and mothers began wanting to save up coupons: thus the demand was split between babysitting and the actual coupons themselves, while the supply stayed the same. Stalemate: no one wanted to give up their coupons by letting their kids be babysat pre-Holidays, and the babysitters were 'out of work'.

So what actually fixed the problem?? Printing up and extra 10 coupons each. The mothers were once again willing to participate in the economy. Similarly, when people are sitting on their money, extra government-injected dollars that bail out banks can enable banks to keep trading and lending money, and help get the economy moving again.

But bailing out, say, car companies isn't the same: *In and of itself, in the big picture, laying off auto workers doesn't lead to reduced demand in the economy* (ie, employees are laid off, therefore they won't buy cars, therefore more companies will go out of business, downward spiral, etc) Why? Because say an employer buys a bunch of robots and lays off 100 workers. The money he would have spent on paycheques, *he's still going to spend somewhere else*, so that maybe fewer TVs will be bought by auto workers, but more travel agents will be paid by the employer, and those travel-agents can buy more cars (or whatever else they choose; the carmaker may go out of business, but other suppliers will come up in its place to meet the static general demand). Maybe the employer just puts his extra money in the bank. That's fine: the bank will spend it. (Banks don't keep much in reserve). Overall, supply and demand stay the same; they're 2 sides of the same coin.

The hitch comes when people start sitting on their money; valuing money for its own sake: say the employer doesn't spend the money, doesn't put it in the bank, but puts in under his mattress: that's where the problems start. You can't at that point just encourage people to spend money for patriotisms sake: that would be stupid! We all know that if we hang on and wait, whatever we want will cost less in a few months. All that's left to do is for the government to inject stimulus money/ get the banks to change interest rates/ etc.

6. Sara said the following at 12:59 PM on Jan 26:

Clarification: I'm not saying the government needs to print money, I'm saying that our economy needs to be active to be healthy, and that because on an individual level it's stupid for us to be spending money right now (we'll save money if we hold off a few months while prices drop), while at the same time it's good for the economy as a whole for us to keep spending, the government needs to do the spending for us right now by injecting our tax dollars into the economy, political fallout of running high deficits be what it may.

7. Chris said the following at 1:02 PM on Jan 26:

Candice writes:

In striving to bolster our contraceptive culture, Congress would deny millions of women the very choice that has brought leaders like those supporting this bill the most joy.

How would they be denying women a choice? The article you referenced didn't have too much to it in terms of what, exactly, is being proposed as part of the package.

8. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:06 PM on Jan 26:

Candice: That's a trillion dollar stimulus package.

But yeah...I otherwise agree with your point. The "stimulus" effort is proving a couple things:

(1) This has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and everything to do with paying off Obama's political allies.

(2) The "reduced cost" is neither an immediate gain, nor is it a long term one. Increased funding of "Family Planning" services could affect births that will occur late this year and probably the next 4 years, but any effect this year will be miniscule at best. Moreover, this will do almost nothing to help states in their current and next fiscal years.

(3) The long-term impact, and by that I mean a decade or more down the road, will not be good. Aside from the fact that the monstrous debt will generate interest payments that will impact the next three generations, the lower birth rate--due to expanded "family planning" efforts--will provide a smaller taxpayer base to carry that debt burden.

This, of course, says nothing regarding the impact that expanded abortion services--which are an integral part of this "family planning" initiative--will have on the soul of our nation.

9. IMO said the following at 1:08 PM on Jan 26:

"It’s hard to be a great power if your population is shriveling."

Looks like Japan has finally figured it out.

10. Brian K said the following at 1:19 PM on Jan 26:

1) Sorry to see edits having to occur. It seems odd, but as they say, oh, well.
2) I heard a quote from Dr. Russell Moore identifying the thinking read above:
“The abortion culture is downstream from many things that are going on in our churches. Because before we aborted children in the womb, we aborted them in our minds…..We began to see children as a burden. Children as an obstacle.”--Russell More
3) Along that lines, it was nice to hear Steve on the http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/totl/2009/AMP_01_23_2009.mp3”>Dr. Mohler radio program. He had some great advice for your young marrieds here.

11. Melissa S. said the following at 1:36 PM on Jan 26:

Wow. Thanks for the link to the video.

I'm sad that politicians would take the stance that it's better for the economy to prevent babies from being conceived. Not only does this show a lack of reverence for life, but it shows a lack of basic research and knowledge of history. Looking for "easy" solutions that actually cause damage and far worse situations for future generations is a common problem in politics and it is frustrating. I usually put it down to a disconnect from history and a narrow-mindedness that sticks to conventional wisdom.

Maybe we should actually be encouraging families to stick together and have more babies?? I don't know the answers or have special training in these areas, but it seems as if that is a better solution to some of our looming long-term future economic problems.

12. LouiseinPA said the following at 1:39 PM on Jan 26:

I'm really glad you brought up this important topic. I'd also like to point out that funding for abortions is being attached to the stimulus package so that people don't pay attention to it.

It's very important that Christians speak out and recognize that forcing women to use contraception and have abortions is no right at all. Children are a gift from God and we should support unwed mothers who have children as Chrstians but never reject the child.

13. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 1:40 PM on Jan 26:

This is more proof that to consistently oppose abortion requires a principled opposition to contraception as being wrong in itself.

14. BDB said the following at 1:41 PM on Jan 26:

Yes...the Japanese are attempting to build robots to address an aging populaton...the Europeans have a lot of immigrants they refuse to grant citizenship too.

Personally, when my famiy came to America, they all learned English and became Americans. I would favor a path to citizenship for immigrants who were willing to become fluent in English first. The naturalization process results in new Americans who are (embarassingly) more familiar with American history than many native-born Americans.

15. kaj said the following at 1:41 PM on Jan 26:

Whatever one's opinion on contraception, this "economic stiumulus" will definitely enrich one sector of America--the pharmaceutical companies!

16. J.T. said the following at 1:59 PM on Jan 26:

I listen to Rush Limbaugh, and he was commenting on this exact sound byte, (the one with Pelosi and Stephanopolis) and his was commenting that contraception and abortion does not equal economic stimulus. Having fewer people on the planet is not good for the economy.

17. Sara said the following at 2:17 PM on Jan 26:

Candice, about "it's hard to be a great power with a shrinking population", it's true that right now the US is a major world power. But look at history: great world powers come and go.

Where is the Holy Roman Empire? Where is Alexander the Great? What happened to the Ottoman Empire? The British Empire? What will happen to the US?

There are now far more Christians in South America and Africa, and Asia, than there are in North America and Europe; times change.

18. Tiffany said the following at 2:18 PM on Jan 26:

Candice writes:

In striving to bolster our contraceptive culture, Congress would deny millions of women the very choice that has brought leaders like those supporting this bill the most joy.

How does providing more contraception deny women a choice? Are we talking about forced contraception?

19. Craig M. said the following at 2:27 PM on Jan 26:

Brian K.--that quote is very, very astute. After years of consideration, I think this is the real issue. Many, many people--even many of those on-record as pro-life--deep down like that there's an "out" from having to be responsible for a child. The law will never change until a lot of hearts change first--and that may not happen until we're looking into the demographic abyss.

20. Tiffany said the following at 2:32 PM on Jan 26:

Brian K's post (11) raises a sincere question for me.

Is the assumption that Christians who use contraception that they view children as a burden?

I'm honestly trying to examine my own heart on this issue.

My husband and I use birth control because we don't feel that now is the best time for children (I'm working full-time and trying to get my degree at night.) However, if we were to get pregnant now, we'd be delighted to welcome a child. I'm just not sure that contraception use = a negative or unhealthy view of children.

21. Kevin said the following at 2:52 PM on Jan 26:

It's wierd when people propose the idea of needing to have more children in order to take care of the elderly population and basically run the world once we're too old to do it. But the thing is, once the next generation (which is larger than this generation) reaches an old age, the following generation will need to be even bigger in order to take care of them. And then the next one even bigger, and so on. But really, this world can only hold so many people. It can only produce so much food and so many jobs. Is the best long-term solution to just keep telling the next generation to have more kids?

I know that this kind of thinking isn't really appreciated by most Christians because the Bible says to be fruitful and multiply. But if you think about it realistically, if people keep multiplying, pretty soon there will not be enough to go around. Enough food, enough jobs, enough healthcare, enough education, enough money, enough space, enough farmland, etc.

People complain about forests being cut down, but where else are we going to get wood and land to build more homes and businesses to take care of everyone? People complain about higher food prices and starving people all over the world, but how much more food can we grow? And where are we going to grow it?

I'm not saying that we need to be afraid of the world becoming over-populated in the next 100 years because it won't. But if things don't change, SOMEDAY it will.

"Who will operate the factories and farms in the Europe of the future? Who will develop the natural resources?"

Well, that IS a problem. But having enough children to operate the factories and farms to take care of the older generation will only mean that we'll need even more factories and farms for the next generation, which means we'll need even more children, and so on. It almost sounds like a pyramid scheme.

I'm not trying to be insensitive or say that children are bad or anything. I was a child once too. However, making contraception more available to more people, like it or not, CAN help in reducing "unwanted" or "unplanned" pregnancies. It's not like people are being forced to use contraception against their will. They're just being given the choice.

22. Jennifer DuBois said the following at 3:01 PM on Jan 26:

The population issue is not only a concern in that the projected work force is dwindling versus the growing percentage of the population that is elderly. What frightens me is that such a ratio will in time (and to a degree already is) raise the question of the "value" of our elderly, for whom we already have a decreasing level of appreciation and respect. They will become ever-increasingly as much a burden as unwanted children are today, and it will push forward movements for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and the like. If you think I'm being paranoid, ask yourself if the Christians of the 1950's or 60's would have imagined that 50 million children would be aborted in the next 50-60 years.

23. Adam said the following at 3:21 PM on Jan 26:

Brian K,

“The abortion culture is downstream from many things that are going on in our churches. Because before we aborted children in the womb, we aborted them in our minds…..We began to see children as a burden. Children as an obstacle.”--Russell More

Actually, there is a huge difference between deciding you would not like to have a child that *doesn't* exist, and physically taking the life of a child that *does* exist. I love Albert Mohler and Russell Moore, but their views on marriage and children are not Biblical.

Also, there is a whole lot of sloppy thinking on this topic. First of all, just because someone decides they would like to serve God in some other way than having children does not mean that there is going to be a population implosion. Do we allow anyone to be elders in our churches? No. Does that mean that we have a shortage of elders in our churches? No. In the same way, just because some couples decide not to have children, that does not mean that there is going to be a population danger.

I think that contraception is not the issue here, nor is couples who decide not to have children. The problem is our society only thinks about themselves, and never considers how they can serve God and others. There is no church, and it is all about how many pleasures you can enjoy before you die. While it is not a sin to not have children, we as Christians recognize that our community of believers as a group are commanded in Genesis 1:28 to be fruitful and multiply. We also recognize that we are to be living our lives in service to God and others. Therefore, I believe every church community must have a ministry with people who are about the task of having and raising covenant children. However, I believe that, even those couples who do not have children must use the significant amount of money and time that they gain from not having children to serve God in another fashion. This certainly means, at very least, bringing people in through conversion. When you have all of these people working together, there is no need to fear that Christians will ever be loosing in population.

For example, if it takes three children per married couple in order to increase, and one quarter of the couples in a church decide not to have children, and every couple that does have children has four children, that is meeting the quota. Also, consider the fact that, in many of the circles that I frequent, there is one couple who usually has 12 children which will account for three couples! Also, consider the fact some couples later on in their lives will want to have children, and be successful, and that will increase the number. Also, consider the possibility that those couples who do not have children will have ministries to others that will either bring little children into the church through conversion, or will convert entire families to Christ through their ministry. That will increase the numbers even greater. Notice how much we can increase the church in this fashion, and I never had to say that every couple must have children.

My problem with the whole anticontraception "full quiver" movement is that it is an American individualistic soution to an American individualistic problem. It is saying indivuduals must have a certain number of children, in order to solve a problem that comes from the same kind of individualism. The problem is much deeper than the fact that people aren't having children. The problem is that we don't think about serving others, and we don't think about serving Christ, because we are too self centered. If we got together and made it a goal of our churches to do exactly what I have described above, I believe there would be no stopping the amount we would grow.

God Bless,
Adam

24. Dr. Ransom said the following at 3:32 PM on Jan 26:

This is unfortunately one very scary step away from giving tax credits to those who promise not to have children -- and undergo sterilization surgery to ensure that will never happen.

And that is one step away from forced sterilization, or forced abortion if a couple has more than one child (as is the infamous policy of China).

However, even aside from a "slippery slope" argument, Pelosi is not only pathetically fiscally shortsighted, but on dangerous ethical ground in encouraging people to think that having children will further cripple the global economy.

I would enjoy hearing from Christian Boundless contributors who somehow decided they didn't have to take the Obama campaign at its word -- that he and his party would be pushing these policies. :-)

25. Adam said the following at 3:35 PM on Jan 26:

Tiffany,

Is the assumption that Christians who use contraception that they view children as a burden?

Only if burden=responsibility. To answer all of these arguments, just simply use a refutation by analogy:

1. A man wins a private jet.
2. However, he does not know how to fly it.
3. Because he has so many other responsibilities, he does not want to learn to fly the jet.
4. Therefore, he views the private jet as a burden to his life rather than a joy.

The same thing from the argument that children are a blessing:

1. Having a degree in Hebrew is a blessing.
2. There are many people who are not getting degrees in Hebrew because of time or money.
3. Therefore, they must believe that having a degree in Hebrew is not a blessing, but an inconvienience.

I am all for the idea that that children are good, and that the church should be serious about its ministry of having and raising covenant children. However, the kind of logic that I find people using when they say that those who do not have children view them as a "burden" or an "inconvienience" is nothing more than rhetoric that cannot be consistently applied across the board. That is why I think that Christians should discuss this issue from scripture, and avoid this kind of rhetoric.

God Bless,
Adam

26. Brian K said the following at 3:43 PM on Jan 26:

Craig M. (#19): astute...that is Dr. Moore (if you've ever listened to him much)!

Tiffany (#20): I agree that is a question that has weighed heavily on me, as well. Not that I've figured the answer, though. It's (bc) something that I've had a tendency to "just accept", but rarely even thought it through. It is a heart issue, and no one knows this except ourselves (that sounds like terrible grammar) and God (and sometimes we like to delude ourselves into thinking it one way, but deep down we really know the answer is different). Funny thing. http://www.boundless.org/2005/answers/a0001216.cfm”>Candice answered almost exactly our question.

PS: Dr. Mohler had a radio program on this, but I couldn't find it. But I did find his commentary on it.

27. Brian K said the following at 3:52 PM on Jan 26:

Adam (#23): Interesting. I love Albert Mohler and Russell Moore, but their views on marriage and children are not Biblical. Quite an accusation. To what specifically do you refer?

And regarding the population concern, many times, when some speak on the declining population, it is in reference to the 1.3 children per household, not that the population needs to increase each generation, but it shouldn’t almost ½ in one generation.

The problem is our society only thinks about themselves - I believe that is exactly the point of Dr. Moore.

I would say that Dr. Moore and Dr. Mohler (and many others) favor a thoughtful consideration of contraception. It is a rightful warning against the thought that we should have a McDonalds life (what I want, when I want and anything short of that is a right to complain).

28. Sara said the following at 4:30 PM on Jan 26:

Tiffany (20), and Brian K,

could the issue not be looked at as a timely/untimely thing, not a burden/blessing thing? Choosing not to eat because you're not hungry isn't rejecting God's blessing of food, just as choosing to spend some time going for a walk by yourself isn't rejecting God's blessing of fellowship. What about seeing it as a 'there is a time for everything' kind of thing? It would be one thing if God automatically implanted fetuses into women: in that case, not having babies would be anti-God, but conception is a choice, one that seems to have been partly put in humans' own hands. [I happen to think that humans using contraceptives is no less natural than chimps using sticks to fish for termites. The only difference may be humans (also natural) capacity for rational decision making.]

29. Tiffany said the following at 4:58 PM on Jan 26:

Sara,

I agree with you competely. I was just trying to raise an example of someone (in this case myself) seeing children as a great blessing but also realizing that this may not be the best time in my life to become a mother.

Your example of not eating when you're not hungry is a good one. I, too, think that procreation is in some regards a choice and that God blessed us with reason and free will because he intends for us to use it, within the limits of His will, of course.

Thanks for the good analogies!

30. Adam said the following at 5:06 PM on Jan 26:

Brian K,

Quite an accusation. To what specifically do you refer?

These things:

1. Marriage is required of virtually all people, unless you have the removal of sexual desire.

2. Delay of marriage is a sin.

3. Marriage is when you become a man.

4. People must marry young to avoid sexual temptation.

5. When you get married, you must have children.

I think that is the point. Dr. Mohler and Dr. Moore always have legitimate concerns. However, I think that many of them look to the past, and the way things always were to solve the problem, read that back into scripture, and then say that it is the Biblical solution. I don't believe that these things are Biblical at all. When I first started studying exegesis at the collegiate level, I found professors rejecting what Dr. Mohler and Dr. Moore had to say on this topic. I got even more of this when I started doing research for papers, and looking at what other commentators said about the passage using the principles of exegesis I was using in class. I think that Dr. Mohler and Dr. Moore have legitimate concerns about our culture. I just think that their solution of binding these things to people's contiences is not the answer. I believe we need to go back to scripture, and carefully examine all relavant texts to find the solution to the problem. I do believe the Bible gives answers to these problems, and I think we need to seek them out exegetically, not traditionally.

I would also say that there is a real danger here in that we can make marriage and children to be a burden, if we are not careful. God's commandments are good, but when we start adding to them, we end up making them a burden. When you force someone to do things that, although inherently good, are not commanded by God, then you end up making the good thing a burden rather than a joy. I know of a lot of Christians in churches where there are all kinds of things that they are not allowed to do that are not found in the Bible. There is just a sense of dead ritualism in these churches. There is no change of heart at all, and many people are very burdened because It is all about rules.

So, I believe that Dr. Mohler and Dr. Moore are correct that there are problems in this area. I just don't believe that adding a command to be more traditional and countercultural is helpful. We need to wrestle with God's word to come up with the solution.

God Bless,
Adam

31. Samaria/daydream11 said the following at 5:36 PM on Jan 26:

Stimulus or no, what's wrong with more contraception? On my side of the fence, that can only result in good, regardless of the economy. *shrug*

32. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:24 PM on Jan 26:

Kevin (#21):

Overpopulation is a misanthropic myth. Indeed, even today, human settlements presently occupy only about 2% of the earth’s land mass, excluding the continent of Antarctica. All the people in the world could fit into an area the size of England, with more than 20 square metres each. Also, a real population expert, Nicholas Eberstadt, in an article ‘Doom and Demography’ (Wilson Quarterly, Winter 2006), pointed out that the population growth of the last century was caused mainly by reduction of mortality, especially in infancy:

‘It was not because people suddenly started breeding like rabbits—rather, it was because they finally stopped dying like flies. Between 1900 and the end of the 20th century, the human life span likely doubled, from a planetary life expectancy at birth of perhaps 30 years to one of more than 60. By this measure, the overwhelming preponderance of the health progress in all of human history took place during the past 100 years.’

He also pointed out that a high population has improved conditions:

‘Troubled as the world may be today, it is incontestably less poor, less unhealthy, and less hungry than it was 30 years ago. And this positive association between world population growth and material advance goes back at least as far as the beginning of the 20th century.’

Contrary to the doom-mongers’ diatribes, the real problem today is not over-population but a ‘birth-dearth’. The world’s total fertility rate has declined to 2.9 children per woman, its lowest level ever. This is down from 4.2 in 1985. Bear in mind that 2.1 is necessary for a stable replacement rate. There are now around 80 countries—representing 40 per cent of the world’s population—with fertility rates below replacement level. For example, Russia, Germany and Italy now fill more coffins than cradles. Italy’s fertility rate is an amazing 1.24. In Australia the rate is 1.8. What will happen to the American Social Security Ponzi scheme when there are far fewer workers per retiree?

To show the silliness of the doom-mongers like that misotheistic charlatan Paul R. Ehrlich, this sort of doom-mongering has been around for almost two millennia. Around AD 200, Tertullian wrote:

‘Everything has been visited, everything known, everything exploited. Now pleasant estates obliterate the famous wilderness areas of the past. Plowed fields have replaced forests, domesticated animals have dispersed wild life. Beaches are plowed, mountains smoothed and swamps drained. There are as many cities as, in former years, there were dwellings. Islands do not frighten, nor cliffs deter. Everywhere there are buildings, everywhere people, everywhere communities, everywhere life… Proof [of this crowding] is the density of human beings. We weigh upon the world; its resources hardly suffice to support us. As our needs grow larger, so do our protests, that already nature does not sustain us. In truth, plague, famine, wars and earthquakes must be regarded as a blessing to civilization, since they prune away the luxuriant growth of the human race.’ [Tertullian, Opera monastic, as cited in Susan Power Bratton, Six Billion & More: Human Population Regulation and Christian Ethics, p. 76, Westminster, Louisville, 1992.]

33. SRG said the following at 9:25 PM on Jan 26:

Wait, I don't get it . . .I thought the editors were against teenage pregnancy.

Candice, are you saying the answer to worldwide population decrease is out-of-wedlock pregnancies?

The beneficiaries of the contraceptives are not likely to be financially stable married couples with college degrees.

Please clarify.

34. Mac said the following at 10:40 PM on Jan 26:

Anybody ever watch the film, "Idiocracy"? It's a rediculous movie, a totally stupid comedy, but it did make me think maybe society would benefit if responsible Christians started having more babies. But Planned Parenthood would use the same line of thinking for their arguments. I guess we can't really worry about the general population when we're seeking God's will for our families. The important thing is that we DO seek God about it.

I have a friend that used condoms AND the pill, but still wound up with five children, despite her and her husbands best efforts to stick with two! Our God is bigger than contraception! Though it wasn't their plan, they are great parents and have found out that they love having a big family.

I have a couple other friends that thought they were barren, then don't get pregnant until they've basically lost hope. One in particular thought she just couldn't get pregnant, then--POOF--three babies over the course of two years (one set of twins). Now they HAVE to take a break just for her body to have some recovery time. They have no planned stopping point, though.

And then there's my husband and me. After trying various forms of the pill, I realized my body just wouldn't tolerate the fake hormones. We tried other methods of contraception, but we were pretty irresponsible with it the whole time (about two years). When we did get pregnant, we had just taken the first steps to arrange our lives for parenthood (my husband started actively pursuing a career shift that would allow me to quit work and be a stay home mom). The timing was so seemless, and our birth control habits so inconsistent, that I actually didn't know that we'd officially decided to "try" for a baby until after I gave my husband the good news! I just thought we were living dangerously! Within a couple weeks of finding out, my husband had a new job lined up and we were ready to move back towards the Midwest (much more suitable for child rearing than the city).

So whether you're super responsible, or not so much, whether you have precise plans, or you play it by ear, God is really the one in control and His timing really is perfect. When we resolve to live our lives for Him, He has a way of taking care of the details. It's amazing.

35. Craig M. said the following at 11:27 PM on Jan 26:

The older I get, the stronger I find the religious rationale against contraception. I think it relates to relentless logical creep in the quiet places in our hearts. The severance of sexual pleasure from its natural result in procreation has a tendency, over time, to breed a focus on the self, and a slight but growing resentment at the thing that dares to interfere in the self's pleasure. I would not have agreed with any of this ten, or even five, years ago. I am still not "against" contraception per se, and I have a hard time thinking that people should be told not to use it by churches. But I am deeply troubled by it. I think there is no question that in many, many hearts, a sense of entitlement to sex without procreative consequences has formed, and over enough time that entitlement translates into dangerous inwardness and hostility towards new life. It is as if our minds and hearts are being corrupted just a bit each day, almost without our knowledge and certainly without our intent.

36. Grace Ashley said the following at 3:10 AM on Jan 27:

The irony is, the woman who said this - Nancy Pelosi - has five or six kids herself, I forget which!

Also, think about this. If Obama hadn't been born before Roe v. Wade and the whole avoid-children-it's-ok thing, he might not be here today! Nothing makes sense.

37. LouiseinPA said the following at 5:17 AM on Jan 27:

Adam-I agree that Dr. Mohler's arguments are not very convincing. I think strong arguments, however, can be made using philosophy and natural law against contraception. The problem with relying on the Bible for this is the same as abortion-abortion is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible because because it was rare and everyone assumed it was wrong. During Biblical times, most people didn't use contraception because children were an assert in the farm economy.

I'd argue that while abortion and contraception are different morally because one kills an unborn baby, the two reflect a troubling manifestation in our culture. Both reflect the over sexuality and worship of sexuality coupled with rampant individuals and materialism. Peopel have abortions because they have sex but do not want to care for children because of the time and expense. Not everyone is like this-but certainly that's a big reason why there are so many very small families in our society.

Most people on this board obviously aren't Catholic but if you're interested in the natural law argument against contraception, read Humanae Vitae. The Pope predicted that abortion would be soon to follow after contraception was accepted because of what contraception does to our culture-i.e. encouraging selfishness. Or, for a more biblically based argument, see Theology of the Body.

38. Amelia said the following at 5:44 AM on Jan 27:

Some people have remarked that increased birth control should, at least, make a few less abortions.

This is not true. Wherever contraception use increases, abortions increase. Counterintuitive? Recall that no contraception is 100% effective, only abstinence and some surgical sterilizations can completely prevent pregnancy. Since many people would not be having sex unless they had birth control, there follows an increase in unwanted pregnancies, and a subsequent increase in abortions. Add to this the many people who use contraception intermittently and imperfectly, who have even greater likelihoods of achieving pregnancy.

The Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey also understood that "in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. . . . for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."

In other words, our nation needs abortion as long as it has contraception. Contraception usually does not kill babies, but that does not mean it is not like abortion in other major ways. We have rejected our children before conception, why would we change once they are conceived when it is so "easy" to abort?

For those interested, a related article:
http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm

39. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:11 AM on Jan 27:

Adam,
However, I think that many of them look to the past, and the way things always were to solve the problem, read that back into scripture, and then say that it is the Biblical solution

I don't think being unselfish and humble are unbiblical...

What BrianK said:
I would say that Dr. Moore and Dr. Mohler (and many others) favor a thoughtful consideration of contraception. It is a rightful warning against the thought that we should have a McDonalds life (what I want, when I want and anything short of that is a right to complain).

I don't listen to Mohler...I probably spend too much time listening to people criticize him than listening to him myself (by Amir and Anakin and occassionally, you), but when the criticism comes against Boundless, I find that the accusations only tackle what's at surface level and never actually address in an affirming manner or critical manner the underlying thing they try to get at:

Are your intentions that of God? And that CAN be Biblically defined. Are you filled with pride in your current career, selfish in your lifestyle, feeling entitled? If your answer is yes to all of those, is it possible that that is what drives you in your decision to avoid marriage, children, etc?

As for believing and propagating the following:
1. Marriage is required of virtually all people, unless you have the removal of sexual desire.

2. Delay of marriage is a sin.

3. Marriage is when you become a man.

4. People must marry young to avoid sexual temptation.

5. When you get married, you must have children.

Perhaps, their reasons for adhering to this is that once determined you should get married, they can't come up with reasons to justify putting off the following 4 that don't violate some biblical tenet of attitude (humility, selflessness) - ergo, delaying marriage, putting off having children, etc are unbiblical.

Maybe its shortsighted of them, but please deal a bit more in grace than you do.

YES, they're gonna be promoting families - its Focus on the FAMILY, for crying out loud.

I have never heard Boundless come out and judge someone who was able to answer no to all those questions and still decide not to have children, not to get married, not to stay at home with their children.

40. Kevin said the following at 8:15 AM on Jan 27:

Jonathan,

Like I said, the world is not overpopulated, nor will it get that way in the near future. What I said was, IF population continues to increase as it currently does (and keep in mind it is exponential increase, not geometric), SOMEDAY it will. SOMEDAY, not tomorrow, but someday.

And as far as everybody being able to fit on the island of Great Britain with 20 square meters per person, you're absolutely right. But keep in mind what 20 square meters looks like. That means about 265 people living on an area the size of a football field repeated over the entire area of England. Now, granted, England isn't the only inhabitable area on this planet by far, but that 20 square meters only accounts for a living area for each person. You also need area for the power plants, factories and industrial complexes that produce energy and goods and services and the like. You need lots and lots of farm land in order to feed all of them (20 square meters of grain is not enough to feed a person for a year). And keep in mind that crops will only grow in certain areas of the world. You need area for hospitals and schools and churches and businesses, prisons, roads, airports, lakes and rivers... You need areas for mines and wildlife areas, parks, campgrounds, recreation... Sure, the people themselves could fit into a relatively small area. But the average area footprint of each person is MUCH larger than 20 square meters.

Look, again, I'm not saying we are in immediate danger of overpopulating the world, we are not. BUT, if things don't change at some point down the line, someday we WILL be in danger. And in light of that long-term outlook, I don't think the idea of just continuing to make more and more babies to take care of the next older generation is a good long-term solution.

41. Candice Watters said the following at 8:30 AM on Jan 27:

Amir (8), billion, trillion, gazillion ... at these levels, who can blame a gal for losing count?

IMO (9), thanks for the mention of the Japan article; timely, no?

Brian K (10), thanks for the link to the Dr. Mohler show. He and Dr. Moore are doing some of the best work on these issues.

Sara (17), you're right that many great empires have fallen and if you read Gibbon, it's for reasons that look perilously similar to what's undermining American civilization. Which is precisely why we talk about these issues here. We want to preserve our union. (see Abraham Lincoln, 1 Timothy 2:1-4.)

Tiffany (20), you're not the first to ask about this. We've talked about it at length here: A Serious Question of Control

Kevin (21), sorry, Malthus was disproved long ago.

42. Kevin said the following at 8:47 AM on Jan 27:

BTW, I made a mistake in my last comment. I said, "and keep in mind it is exponential increase, not geometric," referring to population. I should have said, "and keep in mind it is geometric increase, not arithmetic. Exponential increase would require some VERY healty women in just a few generations.

43. Noel said the following at 10:16 AM on Jan 27:

Does increasing funding for contraception decress unwanted pregnancies? If there is more contraception, does that mean that people will use it? I haven't seen any research that shows either way - my experience tells me that those who use it use it and those who won't, won't - regardless of how available it is.

Has anyone seen any definitive research on this?

44. Sarah said the following at 10:18 AM on Jan 27:

I just read on msnbc.com that this "Contraceptives" provision is no longer part of the stimulus.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/27/1762544.aspx

45. jd said the following at 11:23 AM on Jan 27:

F.Y.I. Obama was against contaceptives being in the stimulus plan.

The Washington Independent
Obama begs Waxman to yank birth control from stimulus
Lindsay Beyerstein, (Article, 1/27/2009)

46. Kate said the following at 12:18 PM on Jan 27:

Amelia, 38: Since many people would not be having sex unless they had birth control

Like who? What research have you seen that suggests this causal relationship? How many women and girls do you personally know who said to themselves, "I can go ahead and have (more) sex now that I can use x birth control method?"

I don't think this type of responsible and thought-out reasoning often accompanies those who are going to be having sex outside of marriage, especially with teenagers! Usually, in what I've seen, such behavior is based on emotions, manipulation by others, and layers of self-denial about the risks. It often occurs spontaneously or accidentally without foresight and planning. If people truly were so motivated to avoid unplanned pregnancies (and STI's for that matter) that they were going to avoid having sex when they could get pregnant, don't you think we'd be seeing far fewer unwanted pregnancies than we do today?

In my experience, what I've seen is that if people are going to have sex, they are going to do it whether or not they happen to have BC in their lives.

I also do not believe the math on the second part of what you said would work out, even if access to BC did cause an increase in the rate of sex specifically occurring during the rare times in which women are having a breakthrough ovulation. Even if many of these "new users" were using it poorly, their pregnancy rate would still be lower than it would be were they not using any BC at all. (Unless, as you claim, that the availability of the BC means that a significant number of women are going to start having sex at a majorly increased rate, specifically during the times of women's breakthrough ovulations).

The essay you referenced in the link contains many ambitiously strong claims about research, but cites no sources. Whoops!

47. Lydia said the following at 1:38 PM on Jan 27:

In my opinion, humans have no right at all to try to control the creation of human life, or destruction for that matter.

God is the one who creates the babies birth control or not.

If we are constantly stifling or killing the source that makes this world and its economies run, then one day there will be no great economies or great nations.

We need to bring family values back! God instructs married couples in His word to be fruitful and multiply!

48. Adam said the following at 9:07 AM on Jan 28:

LouisInPA,

That is why you cannot divorce your life from the covenant community. That was one of the ideas that came out of the reformation, namely, that we as Christians form a covenant community of believers, and that we are to work together to do certain tasks that God has called us to do, such as taking the gospel to the world, having and raising covenant children, bearing one another's burdens, and holding one another accountable when we sin. The solution to that is not to get rid of contraception, but rather, to get rid of the individualism and materialism that people have when they use it, and instead tell them that God commands them to serve him within the covenant community.

I have looked at the theology of the body, and many of the assumptions that are found therin I do not hold as an Orthodox Presbyterian. I do not believe marriage is a sacrament, nor do I believe that, therefore, the church is dispensing grace when it performs marriages, although I can see that this is where this logic will lead.

Also, the Roman Catholic belief that contraception is wrong stems from beliefs that are very clearly gnostic in character. The gnostics were dualists who believed that physical things are evil, and spiritual things are good. Thus, they believed that sexual relations were the hight of evil, because they are so carnal. That belief got taken into orthodox Christian thought [as did so many other gnostic based beliefs, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary]. The problem is that orthodox Christians recognized that, if no one has sexual relations, you cannot reproduce. Therefore they called sexual relations a "necessary evil." What happens when you remove the "necessary" part from the "necessary evil?" You get pure evil. That is why many early church fathers said that it was wrong to have sexual relations without the intent of having children.

Hence, there are a whole lot of assumptions that I as an Orthodox Presbyterian cannot agree with in the Theology of the Body. I think that the solution to all of this is to go back to a theology where the covenant community is essental to the life of a church, and understand that we do not serve ourselves, we serve God, and others.

God Bless,
Adam

49. Keisha said the following at 3:11 PM on Jan 28:

I also read today that the increased funding for birth control under Medicaid is out of the stimulus plan:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18066.html

...so can we lay off of Obama, and political posts, for a couple of weeks? All of the blog postings since this one have been great.

50. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 4:38 PM on Jan 28:

Sorry Keisha, we won't lay off Obama, since he has overturned the Mexico City Policy that prevented taxpayer funding of overseas abortions. Don't give me the treacherous lies of the likes of Kmiec saying that Obama intended to reduce abortions—what you subsidize, you get more of.

And his White House website shows that he's fully committed to imposing the entire gay agenda, including "hate crime" laws (and we can be sure that it doesn't mean those like mother-of-four Mary Stachowitz who was murdered BY a homosexual in an anti-Christian rage).

51. Craig M. said the following at 12:32 PM on Jan 29:

Jonathan--hey, something we agree on 100%!!! How about that? I am second to none in my contempt for the self-deluding and morally schizophrenic Doug Kmeic. What you subsidize you get more of--pretty much always.

52. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:28 PM on Jan 29:

Hey Craig M, glad we do agree totally on this, and that was very well put!

53. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:00 PM on Jan 29:

"Immediately after his inauguration, Obama will balance the budget, revive the economy, solve the real estate problem, solve the auto industry problem, solve our gas/alternative energy problem, stop the fires and mudslides in California, ban hurricanes and tornadoes, stop identity theft, eliminate spam e-mails, reverse global warming, find Osama, solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, get rid of corruption in government and achieve world peace.Then, on the 7th day, He will rest"

54. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 10:26 PM on Jan 29:

Some recent pro-aborts recently snarled that pro-lifers don't care about mothers and post-natal babies. Yet the following shows the pro-aborts in the Senate opposed health care for pregnant women, which the pro-lifers proposed:

Senate Rejects Helping Unborn Children, Prenant Moms Get Health Care Coverage

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
29 January 2009

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — During the Bush administration, President Bush displayed his concern for both mother and unborn child by putting an administrative rule in place allowing states to cover unborn children in the SCHIP program. On Thursday, the Senate rejected an amendment to make that administrative rule national law.

Pro-life advocates had strongly supported the Bush policy, in place beginning in 2002, because it promoted respect for human life and pregnant women without classifying pregnant women as children under the program.

They also say the health care support for unborn children, which entitles the pregnant mother to receive care as well, helped reduce the number of abortions for poor women who decide to have an abortion for financial reasons.

Sen. Orrin Hatch sponsored the amendment to codify the Unborn Child Rule and the Senate rejected his motion on a 59 to 39 vote.

The Senate vote on the amendment came down to the ideological divide on abortion in the chamber with pro-life lawmakers supporting it and pro-abortion senators opposing it.

Most Senate Republicans backed the Hatch amendment except a handful of abortion advocates while all Senate Democrats opposed the Hatch amendment, except Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. ...

55. Eliana said the following at 6:34 AM on Jan 30:

In response to Adam, #48

The Theology of the Body is NOT based on Gnostic teaching. The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is wrong because sexual relations between a husband and wife are sacred and a great good. The sexual act allows a special union between the couple and with God--it allows humans to participate with God in creating life. No other decision we make or act we do can create a new eternal soul, or prevent an eternal soul from coming into being. So you have it totally wrong as to why the Church says contraception is wrong. Sex is not evil, it is one of God's greatest gifts.

56. EKB said the following at 12:48 PM on Jan 30:

A good friend of mine who in the past was strongly pro-choice saw this commercial and it moved him so deeply that he has been seriously rethinking and changing his views on abortion. I pray that God would continue to work through the commercial and that even the most staunch supporters of abortion would have their eyes opened to the truth.

57. kevin said the following at 1:21 PM on Jan 30:

"In striving to bolster our contraceptive culture, Congress would deny millions of women the very choice that has brought leaders like those supporting this bill the most joy."

Candace, this doesn't make any sense--providing contraception doesn't deny anything or make one like a Pharaoh or King Herod.

58. Adam said the following at 8:16 PM on Feb 2:

Eliana,

Sex is not evil, it is one of God's greatest gifts.

I never said it was. I am just telling you the view of many of the early church fathers, and the simple fact that this is where Roman Catholic teaching on contraception comes from, since these are the earliest references to people who believe that contraception is wrong.

The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is wrong because sexual relations between a husband and wife are sacred and a great good. The sexual act allows a special union between the couple and with God--it allows humans to participate with God in creating life. No other decision we make or act we do can create a new eternal soul, or prevent an eternal soul from coming into being.

Yes, but how in the world are you going to get the idea that, therefore, everyone must have the intention of having children with every sexual action, or even any sexual action? That is a huge leap in logic. In fact, when I had a dialogue about this topic with a Roman Catholic, he had to admit that, holding to scripture alone, no one can ever come up with the idea that contraception is wrong. Hence, because I am a protestant, and reject as not binding all tradition that has no Biblical support, there is no way I would ever come to the conclusion of the Theology of the Body.

God Bless,
Adam

59. Amelia said the following at 7:48 PM on Feb 4:

Adam, 58:
Please forgive my ignorance, but I'm confused by some of your points. You correctly point out that "...holding to scripture alone, no one can ever come up with the idea that contraception is wrong." This begs a question you didn't address - Holding to scripture alone, can anyone ever come up with the idea that contraception is right?

If not, why give preference to either side? That sounds unscriptural. If we don't have scriptural assurance that contraception is moral, wouldn't it be better to play it safe and not use it? Also, 1 Timothy 3:15 says that the church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of the truth. It doesn't say scripture is the foundation of truth (though scripture is definitely true, of course). That sounds like if we can't tell from scripture, we should ask the church, and Protestant denominations all agreed that contraception was wrong until at least 1930. I assume this includes your Orthodox Protestantism. Was their reasoning on that issue always so wrong? I honestly I unfamiliar with it, so I have no idea. If they were wrong then, are they right today? How would you know? How can the pillar and foundation of the truth completely change its mind?

Also, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul tells believers to stand firm in both oral and written tradition. Mark 7:8 clearly expresses Jesus' admonition against "the traditions of men," not just any traditions at all. Again, I'm nothing like a great scholar, but it sounds to me like some tradition *is* binding; certainly all of scripture, but also oral tradition. Does your church worship on Sunday? Isn't that a tradition (I could be missing the scripture passage, please supply it)? Weren't the early church fathers just the first ones to *write down* the beliefs of the early church, and may or may not have been the first ones to believe it?

If you want to argue that Catholic traditions are the traditions of men, *then* they would indeed be totally unscriptural, but that's a really huge topic that I personally am not getting into on an online forum.

Sorry to ask such simplistic questions, and I have more but I'm trying to keep it concise, but your line of reasoning does appear to depend upon some of them and you seem pretty knowledgeable so maybe you can help me and others who probably wonder this, too.

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Newer Post | Older Post