Many religious leaders and denominations insist that population growth is one of the main culprits in the economic and Environmental crisis. They emphasize that our planet is dying slowly, killed by our increasing hands.
The religious involvement in this issue is so contradictious and also a paradoxical hypocrisy. On the one hand, most of the religious dogma fight against abortion, child abandonment, and infanticide. The reason is very simple and understandable: life is God’s gift exclusively and His privilege for ending it; no one else can dispose of his or another's life in any way. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of religious denominations disallows any form of other, less violent or life-taking methods, as contraception, birth control or even family planning, because “ensoulment occurred at conception and thus we have to forbid all abortions” (Pope Pius IX). Here the discussions are endless on both sides, anti-abortionists and feminists, both with sustainable arguments. When and where and to what extent will religious understanding and will of readjustment be?
Very difficult questions. Very interesting question though. I would be glad if the economy was based on free-markets, but with things like the prohibition laws, we are far away from that. I think that the world would be a better place if a bit of logic and statistic was thought. I think that the root of the human suffering comes from the lies, before the hate, perhaps.
I can sympathize with the anti-abortion position of many churches in view of what they think is the truth, although there are always circumstances for which abortion is the best or least negative solution. Moreover, forbidding abortion does not work because even if they are very dangerous many women are so desperate that they are prepared to risk their lives, look at the relevant history of Romania. One factor is that an unwanted pregnancy results often in a severe unfair situation. Men, just as `guilty´ often get away with it or can continue their lives, career, schooling. It is also unfair among women. Two girls drink too much have sex after a party, one happens to have her ovulation. The other one can feel superior, gossip etc. One woman has money and can have a discreet competent abortion the other one can choose between a life in disgrace, more poverty and misery or risk her life with a backstreet abortion. Or there is enough money to cope with an unintended child. Or one priest misuses his position to have sex, he is maximally transferred not injected deep in his body with herbs or a soap solution which in sub-Saharan Africa a case fatality risk of about 1:200 according to the WHO.
Women are often kept ignorant about sexual matters, this is often encouraged by the Catholic Church because informing them about the ins and outs of sex is like `giving them a passport to sex`. This results in unintended pregnancies and men being able to exploit ignorance: "you can't become pregnant the first time you have sex"
But I think it borders on the criminal to be against, and sabotage the use of modern contraception.
Populations can double every 20 years or so with good health care, and nutrition. It is easy to calculate that that is unsustainable and will result in famine, strife and collapse. Sabotaging contraception is irrational, it means going back to Survival of the Fittest. Many churches believe that humans are a sort of stewards of this earth. This is in combination with good healthcare and enough food impossible without contraception. In the end there will only be standing room.
Moreover, the single most important factor in the spectacular improvement of child mortality of the last 50 years was the ability with contraception to postpone, space and limit childbirth.
At some point a few years ago the Pope sort of adopted 5 Syrian refugees (not that they use his bathroom). Nice gesture but the contraceptive policy of his church has created millions of refugees, abortion deaths (improved in Latin America since the church is largely unable to prevent access to contraception) and is still at it. Also, by spreading misinformation the RC church is guilty: Condoms have holes large enough for the HIV virus (Cardinals even say this), pills cause infertility, we know for a fact that God is against contraception, IUDs work by causing abortions, abortions cause breast cancer and psychiatric illness, etc. More or less the same God (as the Catholic God) is believed in by Presbyterians, Anglicans, Calvinists, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists etc. and they support the use of contraception. How can the RCC be so sure about its position and know better, that it feels entitled to change personal lives profoundly, endanger lives, increase misery and exhaust the earth?
Therefore, churches that do not actively promote contraception to save the earth, to prevent wars, hunger, maternal mortality, child mortality and other assorted misery behave immoral.
extra just this weekend
This is the USA but it is of course far worse in rural Africa where often the only hospital for miles around is Catholic.
Catholic Health Care and Women's Health
Guiahi, Maryam MD, MSc
Obstetrics & Gynecology: March 2018 - Volume 131 - Issue 3 - p 534–537doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002477Contents: Current Commentary
- Abstract
- In Brief
- Author Information
Catholic health care facilities account for approximately one sixth of the U.S. health care market, have recently demonstrated successful growth, and serve as the only local hospital in certain remote locations. The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services is a set of guidelines created and revised by church leaders that applies the church's teaching, particularly as it relates to concern for human dignity, to modern-day medical practice; all Catholic health care facilities and providers within these facilities are required to abide. Strict interpretation of these directives limits family planning and most infertility services. Many women, however, do not anticipate differences to reproductive health care based on Catholic affiliation, and recent patient reports and legal enactments have highlighted the tension that arises when women are unable to receive medically indicated family planning services. In this article, I demonstrate that reproductive health care services are not consistently prohibited and that clinics often do not inform patients when scheduling appointments when restrictions exist. I highlight ethical concerns about patient autonomy as it relates to modern-day practice and recommend solutions including greater transparency and efforts to improve uniformity of practice at Catholic health care facilities.
The answer to the question "do religions work to decrease overpopulation?" is: it depends. Some religions seem to be very aware of population issues, while other religions seem to be unaware, and still promote large family size.
The issue of abortion is more clearly delimited, and it appears that many of the religious people who are against abortion ultimately take this position for non-spiritual reasons. Below is a bit of history taken from a very reliable source:
How the Religious Right Picked Abortion as its “Cause Célèbre”
An evangelical professor and historian, Randall Balmer, writes about the hypocrisy of the Religious Right’s movement against abortion in his book “Thy Kingdom Come—an Evangelical’s Lament”. He describes what he calls the “abortion myth”, that the RR has always been against abortion. Indeed, some of the leaders of the movement were initially in favor of abortion when it became legal in our country, in 1973. Instead, he claims, when too many evangelicals were leaving their spouses abortion became a political football. Balmer writes that in the late 1970s there was a conference call among evangelical leaders to discuss strategy. They realized that they had the makings of a broad political movement but needed a cause. “A voice said ‘How about abortion’. And that is how abortion was cobbled into the agenda of the Religious Right.”