Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Febble · 09-11-2007, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamaluvr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febble

Nor can we fix the the children who weren't conceived, nor those, like so many of mine, who were conceived but never made it to term for entirely natural reasons. We can't fix anything that doesn't exist. What we can fix are problems.

I've always found this an interesting train of thought. Why is it that, as long as there are external issues contributing to a problem, it is OK to persist in doing the things that contribute to the same problem that we can actually fix? In the past, we've had many more miscarriages and a much higher infant mortality rate, yet, in the West, we didn't nearly have the problems maintaining a balanced population as we do today. What is causing this and what should we do about it?

Because if we fixed the miscarriage rate, we'd almost certainly have a higher rate of genetic birth defects. Miscarriage rate is proportional to the incidence of Down's syndrome, for example, at any given maternal age. And you are probably aware that an estimated 80% of all fertilised ova don't result in pregnancy. Female reproductive tracts are the first hurdle a conceptus has to cross, and only the fitter ones survive. This is a good thing, it's the way evolution has designed us, just as it designed rabbits to reabsorb their conceptuses in times of scarcity. It's good thing, as pain is a good thing, in that it warns us to retreat from what is causing us pain, even though the system goes wrong at times.

These things don't need fixing, they are the way we are made, and enable us to function reasonably well in our environment. To insist that God designed us to give birth to infants that nature appears to have designed us to abort seems an odd view of the creator to me.

But then I'm an odd sort of catholic.

Febble · 09-11-2007, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febble

Quote:

Originally Posted by llamaluvr

I've always found this an interesting train of thought. Why is it that, as long as there are external issues contributing to a problem, it is OK to persist in doing the things that contribute to the same problem that we can actually fix? In the past, we've had many more miscarriages and a much higher infant mortality rate, yet, in the West, we didn't nearly have the problems maintaining a balanced population as we do today. What is causing this and what should we do about it?

Because if we fixed the miscarriage rate, we'd almost certainly have a higher rate of genetic birth defects. Miscarriage rate is proportional to the incidence of Down's syndrome, for example, at any given maternal age. And you are probably aware that an estimated 80% of all fertilised ova don't result in pregnancy. Female reproductive tracts are the first hurdle a conceptus has to cross, and only the fitter ones survive. This is a good thing, it's the way evolution has designed us, just as it designed rabbits to reabsorb their conceptuses in times of scarcity. It's good thing, as pain is a good thing, in that it warns us to retreat from what is causing us pain, even though the system goes wrong at times.

These things don't need fixing, they are the way we are made, and enable us to function reasonably well in our environment. To insist that God designed us to give birth to infants that nature appears to have designed us to abort seems an odd view of the creator to me.

But then I'm an odd sort of catholic.

ETA: and of course the answer to your specific question is that it is because infant mortality is lower and maternal survival rates higher that our population is exploding. The obvious answer is contraception. I hope you are not suggesting that you would prefer to reduce our standards of perinatal health?

Thor Q. Mada · 09-11-2007, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purple_kathryn

If only god and thought to provide enough natural resources to feed all these children :huh:

Yes, the idiot POPE seems to forget that the underlying cause for pollution and degradation of the environment, as well as global warming is gross over-population.
Also, what kind of a god is it that thinks an embreyo more important than somebody dying in excrutiating pains from cancer??
What kind of people are those subscribing to this anachronisctic monster of a god and his deluded servants??
Really bad!!
AND THEY HAVE THE MONOPOLY OF MORALITY??

OripahsTrebor · 09-11-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febble;4773219

ETA: and of course the answer to your specific question is that it is [i

because[/i] infant mortality is lower and maternal survival rates higher that our population is exploding. The obvious answer is contraception. I hope you are not suggesting that you would prefer to reduce our standards of perinatal health?

Well, I doubt he'll assent to contraception since he practices NFP. I guess he's just one of those "One More Soul" Catholics.

Berthold · 09-15-2007, 08:23 AM

Just what did you expect of him :devil1: ?

It may be a nuance that, in that very speech (held before Austrian members of public life, i. e. mainly politicians) he did not mention contraception (at least, it was not in the media).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-15-2007, 08:23 AM	#35
Berthold Veteran Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Vienna, AUSTRIA Posts: 6,147	Just what did you expect of him :devil1: ? It may be a nuance that, in that very speech (held before Austrian members of public life, i. e. mainly politicians) he did not mention contraception (at least, it was not in the media).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.