Should governments control family size?

A question. That's what I'm asking. This author says YES, and that each woman should have one child, world-round. In a way I agree because Islam will take over europe by birthrates and migration, but still...I'm not sure how that works with my Christian ethics though. Am curious to hear your thoughts.

Here is a segment, do share your thoughts on the matter:
For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.

Read more:
The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.


Mahsheed said…
Salam Abu Daoud,

This is an evil article and it goes without saying that it doesn't accord with Christian ethics in the slightest. (Plus it's not correct in the least, we're heading towards global population implosion--though I would argue the same even if the author's basic premise were right.)

Of course it's something the governments want, it is the ultimate governmental power: the power to determine who has kids and how many. We're talking contraception, sterilizations, and forced abortions in addition to constant governmental harassment and fines.

This is what drives the global warming movement; they want to regulate the masses to death.

As to the other angle, about there being too many Muslims, as Mark Steyn says, the future belongs to those who bother to show up for it. If they inherit the entire Western civilization because we contracepted ourselves to death, it's entirely fitting and just. That's the judgment on us.
BillyHW said…
What Mahsheed said.
Umm Daoud said…
Ms. Francis obviously hasn't thought about the negative effects of a one-child policy -- namely, what happens when the population starts to age and there are no children or young adults to support them? You end up with two children supporting FOUR parents, possibly even grand parents (or great-grandparents). It's not sustainable. Unless she is proposing euthanizing the elderly as well so they don't drain society's monetary resources? All in all, a shabbily thought-out article.
Don said…
I saw the same article in Canada's National Post. Sounds like someone is "running it up the flagpole to see who salutes."

I for one won't.

A few years back we had a speaker from a local Evangelical college talk about the subject. He stated the obvious: once living standards start to rise, the birthrate drops, and as that spreads around the world the overall population growth will do the same (and once it's below replacement rate decrease.)

It doesn't necessarily take that long. Look at Iran and Algeria, in the statistics you posted on your own site. They're not at European living standards, but they're at European birthrates.

The highest birthrates in the Islamic world are in Palestine and Afghanistan, where there is war. Under those conditions people feel they're under an existential threat.

The core problem here is simple: our left wing masters have come to the conclusion that the only way to solve our environmental problems is through universal poverty, which will decrease per capita ________ (you name it.) Since a depressed birthrate is related to prosperity, the only way to decrease the number of heads is through enforced birth control, the way the Chinese have done.

OT: Fr. Greg and I have had more fun than human beings ought to have with this topic. Since you posted some of the material that got this started, are you going to join us?
Don said…
Interesting note: the author of this article is a mother of two.

Popular posts from this blog

Pakistan population may touch 292m mark by 2050

Ant Greenham's list of reasons for Muslims converting to Christ

Missionary Secrets 4: our churches don't know what to do with us...