The Pill, The Pope and The People: Humanae Vitae at 35

American Life League ^ | Judie Brown

[RaginCajunTrad]

"happy memories"

Well, there were unpleasant times, but I have often compared my childhood/teen days to either Richie Cunningham of Happy Days or Steve Bolander/Curt Henderson of American Graffiti.

Adult life has been tough. Wild-eyed liberal in student government at college. Hedonistic lifestyle. After marriage, materialistic lifestyle. Started a business, it has succeeded but financial problems have been large, often exacerbated by my own foolishness. I returned to the Church about 5 years ago with a passion. Almost lost it again through liberal theology. Have become deeply immersed in the traditional movement. I can't blame Vatican II and the Novus Ordo for my loss of faith, but it all kind of fell in together near the same time as I was leaving high school, entering college.

You mentioned a "modest neighborhood." Same here. While desgregation was needed, the by-product here in the south was that school consolidations have destroyed neighborhoods, both black and white. There is no sense of neighborhood today as there was 40 years ago.

Somehow we need to raise a generation that will reject the false promises of Satan (in the guise of modernism, progressivism, liberalism, etc).

[RobbyS]

Have you noticed how housing developments seldom include retail stores within walking distance? When did they do away with side walks? Without a car, one could starve to death. Part of the problem is that people feel locked in their homes and just drive someplace for the human company.

[RaginCajunTrad]

I know what you mean. When I was a child, virtually every neighborhood had a little grocery store. It wouldn't have everthing like Wal Mart, but you could get essentials...loaf of bread, some types of meat, eggs, milk, canned veggies, maybe some fresh veggies. Some neighborhoods had small bakeries. These were true "convenience stores." One rarely needed a car. Children didn't need to be bussed to school. Most would walk or ride bikes.

Since the state started the lottery, the convenience stores are not near as convenient since so many people stand at the counter trying to decide what #'s they want or what scratch offs they want.

[RaginCajunTrad]

health insurance?

I don't know why I bother. It was totally outragous for awhile ($500-$700 per month) till somehow I got on a plan for $200+ per month. We rarely have claims and they were always small, only using the prescription card feature. Our highest annual claims was about $600 and still we got clobbered at renewal time. Myself, it doesn't matter, but I can't bear the thought of maybe not getting services for my wife or the two children still at home.

I thought about dropping the coverage. Like I joked, "If something happens, they can have all my mortgages."

[dangus]

:)

'swhy I always say, "if things don't change;" and how I can cite such statistics while talking about "hope."

'cause God's in charge, and the laws of nature as he authored them always result in things changing. The dominant, dysfunctional system always gets displaced; if there is a functional system within, it does the displacing. But I think it is legitimate to use extrapolations to show how disfunctional the dominant system is.

[dangus]

Just checked... the data doesn't jive... 520,000 births works out to less than 1 per hundred residents.... US is closer to 1 per 40, and we're barely at replacement levels. I think the problem is partly due to a fantastically large portion of the population simply never marrying at all, while (unlike the US) also never having children, but the corrollary statistics for that are just too amazing.

[malakhi]

There are lots of reasons. People used to live on farms and grow their own food and make their own clothes like the Amish.

People also didn't used lose half of their income to confiscatory taxes. :o(

[Conservative til I die]

Let me clarify. I had gotten CT scans done in late September that indicated, although no diagnosis could be made from them, indiciated a possibility of cancer. I immediately applied for coverage which would begin Oct 1. In going back to the GP, what he basically did was give me a phyical, EKG, EEG, blood test, the whole nine yards, and then sent me back to get another CT done, but this time the whole body and not just the neck. Then we saw the surgeon and got two biopsies from him about two weeks later, with the official diagnosis made the last week of October.

So really, there was no deception, as I would have been covered since my insurance kicked in before the diagnosis was made (and a biopsy is the *only* way to make a diagnosis. Scans just indicate a few possibilities of what could be wrong, as in "Hey, this is bad, and you could have x, y, and z."). The only thing he did was be helpful and not give the sons of bitches (and they are absolute scumbags) at the insurance company any wiggle room to bend me over and rape me. Turns out anyway that the law in the state that employed me (I live in a different state) mandated that I be covered anyway, so it was all a moot point. But believe me, every doctor I met was sympathetic. They realize what scum the insurance companies are and how some of them actually give bonuses for disqualifying people like me.

I'm no liberal and will never ever be a proponent of universal care, but the insurance companies really forget what line of work they are in, and put profits before people. If they were running a casino, I could understand, but they run a business that is in the business of helping people, and for the $4500 I paid last year for coverage (with them raising my rate 35% this month) their answer to my plight normally would be "Tough shit. Go die in quiet."

[dangus]

>> Catholic Moralists state that families should have at least four children. This isn't a matter of sexual morality but of justice towards society. >>

I'd bet that figure hadn't been revised since the death rates dropped radically. WHO (I know, a lousy source) uses 2.1% as a replacement rate. Even if "3 or 4" is translated as precisely 3.5, that allows for infertility, a large clerical class, and healthy growth. Then again, in Euraope, I'd recommend 10-12 to make up for all those non-breeding atheists. ;)

[Conservative til I die]

Re: getting clobbered with new rates, I'm totally with you. I have COBRA, and thank goodness I just landed a job about two hours ago, and my rate -and this is as a contractor through an agency- went from $275 to $360. They then lowered the rate to $340 but I get an extra $10 on my copay. Outrageous.

[malakhi]

I thought about dropping the coverage. Like I joked, "If something happens, they can have all my mortgages."

The only problem with that is, those who have no coverage at all, and who are unable to pay for care themselves, end up being subsidized either through our taxes or through higher insurance premiums for those who do have coverage. Our system doesn't deny treatment to those who need it. But someone has to pay for it.

I have been considering dropping my HMO coverage for a major medical plan. The way premiums keep rising, I could be further ahead paying out-of-pocket for the little things, as long as I knew I had coverage for any major problems which could arise.

[malakhi]

and not give the sons of bitches (and they are absolute scumbags) at the insurance company any wiggle room

Insurance companies are in business to collect premiums, not to pay claims. They are up pretty high on my personal "loathing list".

[Aliska]

People also didn't used lose half of their income to confiscatory taxes. :o(

Good point. They didn't have myriads of laws to comply with regarding sale of their produce and forms to fill out either.

[Aliska]

I don't see an ethical problem after your explanation except with the insurance companies :-). They have to care more about money and reports to stockholders than people. I don't like the idea of national health, but I don't see things getting any better.

I do hope you will make a full recovery. It sounds like you have been through a living nightmare. Glad the docs are working on your side.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Italy has around 9 births per 1000 people. The numbers are spot on.

The US has around 3.9 million births per year and 286 million people. That is 1 per 73 residents, or around 13.6 per thousand.

US Catholics have 1.05 million infant baptism per year and 65 million people, or 16 per thousand.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Catholic Moralists state that families should have at least four children. This isn't a matter of sexual morality but of justice towards society.

I'd bet that figure hadn't been revised since the death rates dropped radically.

The citation is from "Moral Theology" by McHugh & Callan, published 1958.

WHO (I know, a lousy source) uses 2.1% as a replacement rate. Even if "3 or 4" is translated as precisely 3.5, that allows for infertility, a large clerical class, and healthy growth.

You are confusing two closely related concepts. 1) The total fertility rate for the whole female population of child-bearing age and 2) the number of children per family.

The famous 2.1 figure is the replacement level of child-bearing and includes an allowance for children to die in childhood, etc.

The distinction is that the first group includes women who will never marry (about 5%), women who get married to late to have children (about 5%), women who are sterile or have sterile partners (about 10-20% of the remainder), and women who never have children, despite being able (unknown to me, but probably less than about 5%).

When you tally all that up, about 25% of women never have biological children.

To make up for that, the remaining 3 of every 4 women who do have children must have 8 children between them.

To allow for a percentage of children who die while growing up or prior to having children of their own, those remaining women should probably have 9 children in total (no fractional children in a small example), so 3 each. That works out to a fertility rate of 2.25.

To allow for population growth, a minimum of 4 each by these 3 women would be needed, since you can't have fractional children, and the needs of society are the equal duty of all. That works out to a fertility rate of 3.0.

Considering the number of families who have just 1 or 2 children each, those of us having more have quite a hurdle to jump to try to push the whole population over the 2.1 marker for total fertility. In essence, with about 2/3 of familes with children having 2, perhaps 10% with 1, and 20% with 3, the remaining 5% is left with the bag. In order to hit the 1.9 mark, where the US is really at, that 5% has to average about 5 children per family, or 5% of families with children are having 15% of the children, and 25% of families with children (roughly the number with 3 and up), are having roughly 50% of the children.

[dangus]

>>To make up for that, the remaining 3 of every 4 women who do have children must have 8 children between them.

>>You are confusing two closely related concepts. 1) The total fertility rate for the whole female population of child-bearing age and 2) the number of children per family.

Well, yes, the 2.1 is the total fertility rate. If you need 2.1 children per female to maintain population levels (and this IS per every female, but in includes infant deaths), and 25% of women have no children, then those who do have children need to have 2.625 children per woman, not 9.

That's how many children you need per family: 2.625.

>>To make up for that, the remaining 3 of every 4 women who do have children must have 8 children between them. >>

Um, yes... but let's not forget you're talking about children per FOUR women, not children per women... If every 4 women must have 8 children, then every woman must have 2 children.

[dangus]

>>Italy has around 9 births per 1000 people. The numbers are spot on.

>>The US has around 3.9 million births per year and 286 million people. That is 1 per 73 residents, or around 13.6 per thousand.

>>US Catholics have 1.05 million infant baptism per year and 65 million people, or 16 per thousand.>>

Math checks out to me. But note: 16 per 1000 means population stability if this rate holds up across generations, and you people reach 62 years old. (1000/16=62) So we should be growing. OTOH, there is a bulge in the fertile years due to the baby boom, so the 16 is inflated... so we're really just about breaking even.

Now, consider Italy. At 9 births per 1,000, they'd have to live 111 years to have enough babies! But a longer life expectancy doesn't mean longer fertility, so even that's no use. They need a fertility rate of 14 per 1,000 to maintain the population. At only 9 per 1,000, they are having only 1.3 babies per fertile family, not 2.1, so their population is collapsing.

BUT... I just ran the numbers myself.. At that rate of collapse, it would take 700 years, not 300 to reach a population of only 3. GEEZ, isn't there any research I don't have to fact-check myself!

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Um, yes... but let's not forget you're talking about children per FOUR women, not children per women... If every 4 women must have 8 children, then every woman must have 2 children.

Not four women, three women. Remember, one of them is not having children. Then to account for mortality prior to reproduction, another child needs to be added, so 9 children per 3 women, or 3 women per child.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

3 children per woman. Silly, silly, silly.