Saturday, December 12, 2009
I th I thank Michael for his response.
(1) (1) To suggest that the availability of contraceptives undermines the environment for women is just a play on words. It has nothing to do with the depletion of the world’s resources and the climate change problem.
(2) (2) To question the impact of population growth on depletion of the world’s resources and the climate change problem does not seem promising. Goodman’s column quotes an authority on population “Our impact on the Earth is overwhelming. To say it has nothing do with our numbers is laughable.’’ This may sound harsh, but I do not see how it could be otherwise.
(3) (3) Michael suggests that the correlation between contraceptive information [and Goodman would add the availability of contraceptives for poor women] and lower numbers of children per family may not be one of causation. I doubt that though it is logically possible.
(4) (4) Michael wonders if the column to which I provided a link addresses the issue of a lack of replacement rate of children in Europe. No it does not. He asks whether Goodman would care. I am guessing. But given the exponential growth of people on the planet in the last century, I doubt that she would be concerned.
(5) (5) Michael wondered why I thought the Church leaders would think these facts irrelevant to the moral position. I think Church leaders would think we have a moral responsibility to protect the environment, but not in ways that violate moral laws. My post was not about the morality of birth control. It was rather to focus on one of many ways in which it is clear that the stakes concerning that position are very high.
I m I might say that this is one of many posts on this board that would better fit into a comments section. I will not clutter it further if Michael responds.