Is population control harsh?

"In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger."(1:2)

What the pope is saying is that we the world's population per capita is growing very rapidly. Because of this threat to our available natural resources, governments are tempted to take drastic measure to control this boom. This can include the children laws of China, abortion, and birth control.

Webster defines the meaning of harsh, basically that governments will be "grim or unpleasantly severe; stern; cruel; austere" in order to control this dilemma. This has some good value for society. We can see the horrible treatment of children in China, due to the over population. Couples sometimes even abort their offspring in order to have a specific gender. This completely defines the word harsh. However this could be avoided by the same measures that are deemed harmful. Birth control allows for couples to have a very large control over when they have children, or how many they have. By fighting against the very notion of a way to stop a nation from becoming like China, its allowing it to happen.

This can come with many unforeseen consequences. If people resist the "harsh" ideas that the public will be coaxed to try, then there is no fix for the issue at hand. Its is obvious that because this is even a fear, that man is already in a way out of control with his body. If he was following sternly to the pope's beliefs, there would be no fear or need for population control. This can lead to social pressures to have abortion measures that are not sanctioned by medical science. If their is no prevention, since man cannot control its own population (why its in a boom) we will eventually run out resources. While adhering to the pope's idea that a population out of control will lead to harsh ideas (China), we must not reject humane means of controlling population, such as birth control. It is population control,

Married Love

I chose section 9, Maried Love.  In the first paragraph the Pope is saying that a man and a woman have free will who they choose to trust in order to survive daily life and to grow together as one.  In the next, he is saying how husband and wife share everything and think of each other and not of just themselves.  Both husband and wife not only loves what they receive from each other but also loves giving to the other.  In the third paragraph he says that their love is faithful and exclusive to only each other. Sometimes marriage can be difficult, but no one says its impossible.  But it is honorable to make it work.  Marriage is a source of great happiness.  In the last paragraph, the Pope talks about how with marriage comes children, and children are the greatest gift of marriage and contribute the most to the parents life.

This is basically describing fate and true love, but in a more strict manner.  My position on this, since I’m not religious at all, that this strictness from the popes aspect is kind of ridiculous.  But I do agree that marriage should be between a man and woman and that the couple should be comfortable and trusting of eachother before getting married and having children.  The divorce rate is quite high and that isn’t good.  It’s tough on everyone, especially children.  My parents got divorced when I was young.  Growing up with parents separated is quite tough.  Once a couple is trustworthy of each other and ready to get married then go for it and if they come across any problems they should try hard to work them out.

Promotion of Chastity

Paragraph 22 discusses the notions of chastity in that the general idea is to condemn various methods of sexual expression ("social communication which arouses men's baser passions") as it promotes a poor environment and future for humanity ("the need to create an atmosphere favorable to the growth of chastity so that true liberty may prevail"). Essentially what is being constructed is a social movement to remove aspects of sexuality which have negative impacts upon the "human spirit".

This means that pornography, nudity, sexuality, anything that is textual or visual or even suggestive in nature which intends to incite sexuality in individuals is downplaying the progression of humanity and society. This argument is rather assumptive however in that such media causes stagnation in society, or that we will be 'distracted' from being productive members of society. And there is some truth to this, but at the same time we must also remember that in doing so may curb the sexual needs of individuals. At the same time, this may also incite individuals who are not satisfied by such presentation of sexuality to negatively impact others in various ways.

However, where this argument takes it's turn is the line "it is quite absurd to defend this kind of depravity in the name of art or culture or by pleading the liberty which may be allowed in this field by the public authorities." To promote your own culture's values for denouncing sexuality in media is perfectly acceptable, but we must remember that not everyone has this same outlook on life or 'human progress'. This comes down to our definition of freedom, which we can typically look at as being the ability to believe and act however you wish but without affecting the freedoms of other individuals. But the argument put forth in this paragraph can still be attributed to this notion, as said previously regarding a favorable atmosphere and "true liberty".

What it comes down to is that the argument put forth is valid, but only when looked at from a single perspective, making it unenforceable in a number of ways. In addition, these words can be twisted very carefully to imply that it should not be removed from society, but heavily looked down upon. "Should be condemned publicly and unanimously" does not imply removal of this aspect of society, and furthermore does not mention anything about the privacy of the individual, but simply focuses on public display of such aspects. Thus, using this logic, very little change (especially in the United States) would have to be made to actually abide by this ideology.

Overall, personally, I think that it's rather outrageous to try to enforce this on people. Most studies have shown that sexuality does not promote illegal action (rape, murder, etc.), and we should never forget that we are still 'human' (and all biological factors that relate to such a title) and if we put such restraint on sex and sexuality, it only intensifies people's desire for it instead of supressing it.

Contraceptives

The Unlawful Birth Control Methods section in the Humanae Vitae is very frequently quoted passage that reflects that issue of using contraceptive methods by the Catholic Church members. Pope Paul VI claims that “direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children”. This passage is associated with the fact that contraceptives like birth control, condoms (although now allowed) and of course abortion are prohibited in any situation. Christian doctrine of marriage is used, as a source of evidence by the Catholic Church to point out that there is indeed biblical evidence that God does not support such methods.

The views and positions on the topic of contraceptives are different just like with any controversial topic regarding religion and the scientific modern world. Once again science is colliding with religion because in reality this is a fairly new debate/issue that was probably unheard of 20 years ago. Now, with constant new scientific innovation, the Catholic Church seems to find scriptural evidence of the issue being or not being appropriate or religiously justifiable. To religious individuals the religious definition and justification is simply all that is needed in terms of explanation. However, in my opinion there are many factors in the Catholic Church example of why certain issues are more prominent and important than others. Furthermore, some issues receive less emphasis and are so called dropped while others are upheld and asked of complete obedience. What people tend to forget is the Catholic Church is at battle for its survival. With Christianity at its decline and religion in general, the Catholic Church is doing everything in its power to maintain power and hold its strength.

In class we have talked about the relationship that religion has with science. With scientific innovation, religion seems to come up with justifiable or not justifiable evidence that relates to particular scientific findings. This means that religion it self is evolving and this is evident when you compare Catholic doctrines today to the past ones, with many that are no longer practiced. Catholic Church is not as powerful as at once was and maybe the institution itself has not aligned with science but it has aligned with political and economic discourses s with the Vatican being autonomous and also one of the richest nations in the world. In my opinion, the notion of what ‘ever serves my best interests’ applies to the Catholic Church as well. It is not clear to me why condoms are not allowed despite Catholic Church claim on condoms partial solution of HIV virus, its still considered a contraceptive.

So what makes Plan B that much different, because the ultimate goal is the same, to avoid pregnancy. With out doubt, the Catholic Church is trying to compete in this harsh global market but for it to maintain it must evolve because there is no other way. People are subjected to various discourses and each one-position human in a particular way. The two-child law in China reflects the economic and political factors that people are starting to be more concerned with the decline of religion. Especially in the competitive world that the capitalist system has developed, individuals are simply prioritizing with the intention of survival itself. Karl Marx believed that religion should be abolished for the fact that religion positions individuals to not worry about what is happening during their life on Earth because they are promised heaven. While what is occurring right now is not complete rejection of religion/faith but definite direction that does not seem to be headed for religiosity.

Married Love

In Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, paragraph 9 ‘Married Love’, he defines the love as this celestial and pure ‘thing’ that has absolutely no room for mistakes/errors. He describes this love as if everyone lived in an ideal world. He mentions that married love is a ‘very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience.’ Yes, although sharing everything to your significant other is what everyone should do but in reality it isn’t always the case due to circumstances and whatnot.

Paul also mentions that married love will lead husband and wife to become one heart and one soul, and ‘together attain their human fulfillment’. By saying that, I believe he is hinting that in order to be ‘whole’, you need to be married and that is not the case. I know several people who are very happy by themselves and do not need someone else to fulfill them.

In paragraph 9, Paul also mentions how ‘marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children,’ and how children are the ‘supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree of their parents’ welfare’. In lame man’s terms, he is saying that it is inevitable (nature) that once you obtained marriage love, you will and must create children because they contribute to the parents’ welfare. I disagree with his idea of what ‘nature’ is because not everyone is ready or want to have children and children definitely do not make or break parent’s welfare. Not everyone plans to have children and some are not financially able or even mentally stable to have children. If everyone had children because they felt compelled to, imagine how much child neglect, abuse, and financial assistance will arise from those who are not financially able, mentally fit, and ready to have children.

My other issue with Paul’s paragraph 9 is that he speaks of marriage between only man and woman. I believe marriage should be between any two people who love one another and are willing to take the commitment of what marriage entails.

http://front.moveon.org/two-lesbians-raised-a-baby-and-this-is-what-they-got/

I’m sure many of you have seen this video but I wanted to share it since he speaks so eloquently and really gives me hope for the younger generation. He speaks how he was raised by two mothers and that it has not affected his upbringing and is an advocate of same-sex marriage. If this young man was my child, I would be very proud to call him my son. I know this may be a stretch on tying this in with Paul’s paragraph 9 but I see this tying into the paragraph by the whole idea of Paul believing marriage is just between man and woman. I believe marriage love should not just exist between man and woman but should include everyone.