Hehe... I just knew she'd be a catholic who reads the Humanae Vitae :) Yup I read it years ago and threw it in the bin, its simply the pope's opinion lol. I was born a catholic so am quite
well informed. The Vatican is in a corner on this of course. If they change their mind about contraception and abortion now, bang goes the papal infallibility story and they refuse to wear so much mud on their faces, so they plod on relentlessly, no matter what the damage that they cause to millions of people.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/parting-shot-to-pope-get-real-on-aids/2005/12/03/1133422148025.html

Thats what one of Australia's most eminent scientists, president of Britains Royal Society, thinks of Catholic policy on the topic :)

The figures have all been crunched on here before Tama. 1 in 100'000
deaths, similar to surgical abortion, 14 times safer then birth.
Women aren't flying to NZ to obtain 486 for no reason you know..
Give them the choice! We don't want religious tyranny here!

Yes human overpopulation remains a huge problem. 80 million a year added every year. Every woman on the planet has should have the human right to family planning and abortion in the first tremester.
There is no good reason for them not to, but Catholic dogma and papal infallability issues are holding up justice for these women!

Yabby, you're absolutely right. I don't know why I was even arguing with you, lol.
Your powerful insight, knowledge of relevant statistics and ability to identify the salient points of every argument have simply astounded me.

It's a pity you're no longer Catholic though. A lot of my friends gave up their faith when they became mentally unstable too.

Yabby, On the question of over-population, I don't think anyone would say Australia is over-populated. Our birthrate is 1.77, so it is under replacement level. Without immigration the Australian population would eventually abort itself out of existence.

Tama, thanks for your post. Let me put it this way.... You might know a little about neuroscience and the importance of homeostasis to your wellbeing. If the Catholic Church helps you achieve that then fine, so stay with the diminishing flock, apart from Africa of course, where people are less educated and more gullible, so they continue to win new converts.

I have no problem with people being Catholics, I have a problem with the Vatican trying to force its agenda on the rest of us. Whilst they do that, they are free game lol, I'm not into religious tyranny.

Al, the question of sustainability in Australia has yet to be answered. Some people like Tim Flannery think we are already overpopulated, due to our ancient, clapped out soils, water problems etc. Farming is not yet sustainable, although we are getting better at it.

In the bigger scheme of things, you have to see things globally. If every Australian died tomorrow, it would only take 90 days of present human breeding to replace all of us. What we are doing as a global species is not sustainable, thats the big issue

Yabby, Once again you mention the Vatican's agenda. Again I say that most organisations and many individuals have an agenda. The Feminists cerainly have an agenda, and push it very hard, requiring interference in political processes.

So do the Secular Humanists. In their magazine "The Australian Humanist" issue Summer 1973, they set out seven main objectives:

1. Legalisation of homosexuality, and its acceptance as being equal to hetrosexuality as a way of life.
2. Legalisation of abortion on demand.
3. No fault divorce .
4. Legalisation of euthanasia.
5. Abolition of all controls on pornography.
6. Abolition of religious eduation in schools.
7. Legalisation of "soft" drugs e.g. marijuana.

As you can see, some of these have since been carried through, partly or fully, which certainly required some "political interference". If they have the right do this, so do the Christian religions, including the Catholics.

Al I think the Catholic Church really needs to navel gaze a bit as to what it really is. Is it a religious organisation basing its views on theology, or is it a political organisation basing its view on philosophy?

If its a religious organisation preaching to its flock, then fine, whatever the flock thinks is ok by me, for their lives. If its a political organisation, wanting to push its religious agenda on to me based on its theology, then that is what bin Laden is doing too. I have huuuge objections to that.

If its a political organisation trying to push its philosophy onto me, then we can argue and fight over that, then its the same as Liberal/Labour etc, no holes barred squabbling as we do over politics, so don't expect any sympathy if things get nasty, for I havent heard you pleading that the Liberal party should not be attacked etc.

Human rights are a huge issue. Taking peoples right away from them is a huge issue. If somebody wants to take away those rights and wants to force me to live a certain way, they had better have very good reasons. We can argue about philosophy, but we can't argue
with people who claim their inspiration is divine or supernatural.
Thats just their claim, nothing more, no substantiated evidence.
Our lives are based on our ability to reason and evidence. Go to
a court of law and tell the judge that you think xy is so because
you had a holy vision and see how far that you get.