The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Cardinal Pell’s babies - quantity or quality > Comments

Cardinal Pell’s babies - quantity or quality : Comments

By Valerie Yule, published 31/7/2008

Until there is more concern about quality, concerns about the quantity of babies will just mean more juvenile suffering all round.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Pell’s exhortation to have more babies is just fundamentally outrageous, no matter which way you look at it. The silly fellow actually believes that our population in Australia is in real danger of going into decline!

What sort of an absolutely detached insular little world does he live in?
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 31 July 2008 3:13:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We all know the answer to that one Ludwig, it's called the Roman Catholic Church.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 31 July 2008 5:35:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, Ludwig.

Valerie, that’s a wonderful article, I totally agree with you.
I have no idea why anyone would still take cardinal Pell seriously after he claimed that abortion is morally worse than the sexual abuse of children by priests.

The things he says are outragious and like Sheik Al Hilali, he should be asked to resign or be sacked
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 31 July 2008 5:46:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'I have no idea why anyone would still take cardinal Pell seriously after he claimed that abortion is morally worse than the sexual abuse of children by priests.'

Personally I find both revolting but at least a child will receive a degree of healing when abused. The unborn have no say.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 31 July 2008 6:07:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, I surprised myself the other day by coming to an understanding of Pell's views.

Don't mistake this for condoning it, I don't. I think it's an idiotic way to view the world, but his view is based on the supremacy of two things - firstly, that worshipping his god is all-important, and secondly that fetuses are to be considered as people.

So when you frame things in that context, I can see how he'd be concerned that the dwindling numbers of churchgoers means that those who are devoted catholics should breed.

It's idiocy of course, but they're his fundamental pillars.

Convincing someone that the bedrock of their beliefs is harmful to the world is a big ask. So much so, that catholicism and other rigid religious must drill it into their followers that to stray even remotely from their teachers is evil.

You can see it here, from certain posters who have been programmed to loathe secularism and anything else that detracts from their religion, regardless of the harm it causes. They've been conditioned to view everything this way, and until they can see their religion from the outside, I sincerely doubt they can be convinced otherwise. Unfortunately, they believe they are the ones with the answers and every single other religion, belief or culture in the entire world that doesn't fit their strangely specific doctrine is wrong.

(Note that this comment is all directed toward those with hostility toward other religions and those who defend harmful traditions, not live-and-let-live religious moderates).
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 31 July 2008 6:08:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When George Pell can carry a baby to term, or even marry he can then comment.
His words and dictate are meaningless, and shows him up for a charlatan. A person totally out of touch with the 21st century!
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 31 July 2008 7:14:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good article - right on the button.
However people such as Pell et al have long demonstrated a total indifference to secular common sense - preferring suffering 'souls' to no 'soul' at all. That anyone with even a modicum of brains can argue for deliberate population increase irrespective of prevailing social circumstances beggers belief - even so, the catholic church manages to do so on a regular basis and the Pope is, as we all know, infallible. Perhaps the church is concerned that it will run out of children for sexually frustrated celibate priests to molest, or of young minds to distort by the joyous application of medieval rubbish, superstition, and guilt via pulpit thunderings and the cane.
Pell's outburst of nonsense is however another brownie point towards his ultimate goal which is, of course, the papal throne so all is not entirely lost. We may, in the fullness of time, get rid of him.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Thursday, 31 July 2008 9:37:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems that secularism could be becoming a religion in itself, although not as organized at present as more formal religions.

I can think of a few other “isms” that have become similar to religions, with various gospels and forms of worship.

I don’t know the full context of Cardinal Pell’s speeches, but perhaps he was referring to “meism”, where people are now so absorbed in themselves they no longer want to have any children.
Posted by HRS, Thursday, 31 July 2008 10:03:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmmmm *secular common sense*.... good 1 Gymmy....

I actually thought that common sense was 'common' rather than being the sole property of the exclusive secular brethren.....?

Also... LUDWIG..or should it be HooodWINK....

Australia's fertility rate in 2005 was 1.77 ERRRRRR.. which part of that 'common' sense does not tell you that if 2 people only produce 1.77 new people.. that they the net result is a DEcrease in population.
Considering:
-Those unable to reproduce due to age (too high/too low)
-Those who die in accidents and due to sickness

Then..1.77 is WAY too low.

SOLUTION? aah.. let's bring in LOTS of people from other countries who:

-Don't speak our language
-Don't share our values
-Are tribal
-Who have foreign policy interests in conflict with ours.
-Bring in their historic conflicts to Australia.
-Do not integrate/assimilate well...

and the result is.. CHAOS.

The only problem with Cardinal Pells views are that they are most likely aimed at Catholics, and possibly have a 'power base' aspect to them.
Posted by Polycarp, Friday, 1 August 2008 5:26:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well done Valerie. God Bless You.
Posted by ericc, Friday, 1 August 2008 9:16:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HRS “where people are now so absorbed in themselves they no longer want to have any children.”

Ah well, at least such ‘selfishness’ will not pollute the gene pool or carry into future generations.

On the other hand, who is the Church of Rome to tell anyone how to live when it is a paternalistic anachronism founded on sexual repression and terror?

To “can think of a few other “isms” that have become similar to religions”

And to the Church of Rome try

Despotism
Authoritarianism
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 1 August 2008 10:03:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the article Valerie.

I distrust marital advice from 60 year old gents who wander around in red slippers, especially when they have never married or ever had to prepare a household budget or think about strategies for getting a house or a job. They are irrelevant to my daily life. Unfortunately these gents are keen to control my behaviour in the bedroom.
Posted by billie, Friday, 1 August 2008 10:04:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycarp,

First wogs were greek and itallian, then wogs were asian, now wogs are Middle Eastern.

All new cultures do assimilate quite beautifully into being 'dinky die' Aussies eventually. In fact a lot of the Italian community I know have become so Australian they hate wogs too:-)
Posted by Usual Suspect, Friday, 1 August 2008 11:09:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazycrap: << SOLUTION? aah.. let's bring in LOTS of people from other countries who:

-Don't speak our language
-Don't share our values
-Are tribal
-bla bla bla >>

You mean, like Mrs Boaz for example?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 1 August 2008 11:18:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge, you also forgot Nepotism, which was once rampant in the days of the Medici, also Cronyism, whereby a Pope seeks to perptuate his own slant on things by appointing like minded bishops to be cardinals.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 1 August 2008 12:27:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article was pleading for improving care for children, as more important than rattling on about quantity of babies.

I hope that people can wake up to the serious need for better child-care practices, for every child. Look around you.
Posted by ozideas, Friday, 1 August 2008 9:11:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aw Polyboaz, haven’t we been over this before? Is you is just cruising for a rumble, yeah? Will the real hoodwinker please stand up!

Alright… one more time…

The 1.77 fertility rate figure refers to the average number of babies per woman.

However, there are many more young breeding people in Australia’s population than there would be if the population was stable and had an age distribution typical of a stable population.

This means that despite the personal fertility rate being well under 2, the national fertility rate is actually a bit over 2. So with net zero immigration, our population would continue to grow for quite a long time due to births alone, with this apparently below-replacement fertility rate. It will continue to grow until this age bulge evens itself out.

This bulge is present largely due to the skew in our immigration program towards young people who are having kids or soon to have kids.

“1.77 is WAY too low.”

No it isn’t!! We could actually do with disincentives to have kids, along with net zero immigration, if we were really earnest about bringing our population to a stable level as quickly as possible.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 1 August 2008 9:51:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig,
I have tried, but I can’t find the figures for the mean, median and mode of the number of babies being born per adult woman/man.

About 25% of women/men don’t have any children, and a high % of women/men only have 1 child. So this must mean that a small % of women/men have 2 or more children, and it would be these families that are holding up the population numbers, or without them, the population would quickly decline.

Also the immigration rate is rather meaningless without taking into account the emigration rate, which seems to be increasing, and unfortunately those emigrating (or abandoning the boat and swimming away) often have high skill levels.
Posted by HRS, Saturday, 2 August 2008 11:20:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy