Population strategy advice for the premier

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

If Premier Kathy Dunderdale really wants to increase our population, her first step ought to be to visit the Roman Catholic archbishop and plead with him to fully disclose to about 190,000 local Catholics the official teachings of the church on contraception.

This province once had one of the highest birth rates in Canada. In fact, up until about the mid-1900s all Christian societies for two millennia had prohibited — on pain of mortal sin —the practice of birth control. It was viewed to be “more atrocious than incest and adultery” (Martin Luther 1522) and “hostile to national welfare” (Anglican bishops 1917). Those who distributed and sold birth control devices were criminally prosecuted.

But that was before modernism and the new morality overwhelmed Christian leaders. By the 1960s, only the Catholic Church continued to adhere to such “antiquated” thinking. Unfortunately, about the same time a new crop of Catholic bishops began to emerge who, under such mantras as legitimate dissent, politeness or popularity, quietly kept the age old moral teaching of the church to themselves. Thus the average Catholic began to act like the average non-Catholic. While morals took a nosedive, Catholics likewise engaged in contraception, pre-marital sex, co-habitation, divorce, abortion, etc., with little or no rebuke. No counter-cultural influence prevailed.

Besides the Pope — who travels around the world warning of the destructive, unjust practices of abortion, contraception and sexual perversion — only a handful of bishops in all of North America actually teach, admonish and warn their people as required regarding the moral truths of the Catholic faith. And morality is no abstract notion; it yields its societal fruit as does all ideology. The chickens do indeed come home to roost.

Thus we have the demographics which Premier Dunderdale finds so frightening. But the new morality is more terrifying than simply contracepting away future generations; it also eliminates by abortion 1,000 children every year. Since legalized abortion in 1969 we have lost as many as 40,000 or more from the Newfoundland census record.

Compare the numbers. Even if Ross Reid finds for us a few dozen more immigrants every year, it will hardly solve our crisis. We need bigger numbers, much bigger numbers; the kind of numbers that we’ll see only if there is a return to a sensible morality.

Premier Dunderdale, will you incorporate that goal into your new population strategy?

Eric Alcock

Conception Bay South

Organizations: Catholic Church

Geographic location: Canada, North America, Newfoundland Eric AlcockConception Bay

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Colin Burke
    March 02, 2013 - 11:44

    Ish Lundrigan, if it is correct to suggest that Mr. Power, Mr. Morrison, and Charles are all in agreement with me and Mr. Alcock, then I am not the only one whose prose is hideously difficult to comprehend, for, so far as I can see, my position has not been misrepresented to them.

  • Ish Lundrigan
    March 02, 2013 - 10:33

    In view of Leah's recent comment, it is rather ironic if not mildly comical... that it took Colin Burke 7 posts comprising approximately 1900 words of disjointedly obscure, hideously verbose prose for his fellow posters to interpret his position on this issue as being the polar opposite of what it actually is.

  • Ed Power
    March 01, 2013 - 17:37

    I would have to say, Mr. Burke, that the principles by which I determine whether or not an action is right or wrong would be humanist in nature. I do not believe that one needs the fear of a god or devil to be an ethical and moral person. I believe that this is the result of a good upbringing and family support, quality education and decent social services - medical, dental, political freedom, economic opportunities, etc. - that allow people to reach their true potential. I wouldn't be able to cite a specific philosophical influence, but perhaps it could the ancient sysyem that was later codified as the Biblical "Do unto to others...."

  • Tom
    February 28, 2013 - 18:42

    MR. ALCOCK, YOU SHOULD HAVE THE LAST WORD. YOU CERTAINLY HAD THE FIRST.

  • Colin Burke
    February 27, 2013 - 15:20

    Sorry, Leah: hadn't you noticed that I actually mean my comments wholeheartedly if somewhat indirectly to support Mr. Alcock's position, so that being "warned" that they might do so is unlikely to deter me much? Anyway, when I once engage in an argument, I try to hang on -- badger-like and maybe even gladly badgering -- either until I convince my opponents or they convince me, though I seem sometimes to encounter opponents who are not so much determined to win me to the truth as to insist that I must never suggest a logical reason why another's choice might possibly be wrong.

  • Leah
    February 27, 2013 - 14:11

    Mr. Burke, For the love of heavens, will you let it go, and stop all this back and forth bickering. You're probably playing right into Eric Alcock's hands. Do you think God is pleased with all this?

  • Colin Burke
    February 26, 2013 - 15:00

    Mr. Power, my apologies, sir. I have gone about this discussion entirely wrongly. I have, for instance, kept trying to impress upon you the validity of a moral principle which I myself think is accessible to anyone possessing the faculty of reason, sometimes called "intellectual intuition and judgement, a principle which I, who am by no means infallible, have "felt" to be one of several "abstract, eternal, and objective standards by which to judge the universe." Had I been even minimally courteous and fair, I ought first to have invited you to tell me by what principle or set of principles you weigh whether an action is right or wrong, and recommended that you do your best, as I have tried to do mine, to impress upon me the validity of that principle or set of principles, putting me entirely upon the defensive. That invitation now I extend, hwever regrettably belatedly. (Have you noticed that my favourite "principle" clearly implies that if I try to compel another to accept my beliefs, then I deserve to have his beliefs enforced upon me, so that either I must refrain from trying to enforce mine or, perhaps,we might fight fairly in a physical sense to see which belief prevails through the survival of its adherent? Of course, people who take that view may be confident that an abstract, eternal and objective truth cannot be destroyed in the physical death of its adherents, which might give them in such a fair combat something of an advantage.)

  • Judy
    February 26, 2013 - 14:33

    My neice typed a comment last evening but for some reason you have chosen not to post it. It was basically just stating what most others are saying here.

  • Ed Power
    February 25, 2013 - 21:01

    I've read your latest post, Mr. Burke, three times to be exact, and I'm sad to say that it is no clearer to me now than it was the first time I read it. I do see, however, that the "people deserve the effects of what they do" theme is still prevalent throughout. No suprises there. As to the truth of Evolution, or Evolutionary Theory., you don't have to accept it. You don't have to accept the Heliocentric Solar System or Laws of Gravity either. All, however, remain true, irrespective of your particular beliefs.

  • Wanda
    February 25, 2013 - 19:27

    Mr. Power, You are certainly right in your last five or six sentences of your most recent post. Mr. Burke, you said your mother had only seven children, but wanted eight. Not using contraceptives, she could possibly have had fifteen or twenty. Would she and her husband be able to afford that at the time? You are more crazy than Mr. Alcock.

  • Colin Burke
    February 25, 2013 - 17:24

    Mr. Power, I do not "demand blind, unquestioning obedience" to anyone or anything for I much resent its having once been expected of myself. I am trying to point out, so that neither of us need blindly follow unquestioningly our merely instinctive or emotional tendencies, themselves morally blind, the path lighted for us by perceptive rationality. That we deserve our deeds' effects does not require verification by marshalling individual facts according to the "scientific method" you seem to deem necessary: we need not support it by "research" finding that this or that murderer merits execution or this or that rapist or slave owner merits flogging; all it needs is a basic understanding of the meanings of the words "person," "deed" and "deserve" for one to accept it as true. One may see that it is true, see directly that it is false, establish that it is false by arguing rationally from some other truth or truths which one does see directly, or admit more or less honestly that in fact one can't see anything in it. But complaining that I keep incessantly beating the same little drum does not establish definitively that their makers don't want drums to be beaten; that a moral code to which men adhered in the Bronze Age has retained adherents until now, is not proof positive that it never deserved to survive among men, and that men have always exercised their imaginations either in mythology or on television is not logically a positive proof that every religion must be irrrational. That people deserve the effects of what they do is no less valid for being repeated in several different contexts without support from different facts in each instance, any more than it would be true to say that a medieval, or a Bronze Age, sword still in good condition cannot be used repeatedly in self-defence because it cannot be reloaded like the modern repeating rifle. If it is not true that those who inflict sexual slavery upon women in Africa are therefore entitled to what they enjoy as a result, because the moral wrong they commit is a reality far outweighing such merely physical or emotional enjoyments, so that they deserve to have inflicted on themselves what otherwise would be equally wrong morally, then what is the rational basis of your own moral indignation against such slavery? Or do you subscribe to a "scientific" view of "moral indignation" as only an emotional and entirely self-centred revulsion from the possibility that you yourself might be subject to similar unpleasantness? Or am I supposed to accept the evolutionist dogma that human rationality establishes by scientific research that there is no truth acceptable to reason except the truth of evolution? I understand that that "finding" of "science" is widely deemed acceptable these days.

  • Mr. Morrison your stance on Mr. Alcock's suggestion for population control is moralistic.
    February 25, 2013 - 13:54

    Mr. Morrison you express your opinion on this subject in a very moralistic manner. No moral and loving God wants a woman and a man to create children that they can't emotionally and securely support. The belief that it is God's wish is based on man's desire to have unprotected sex because he gets more gratification from it and he therefore forgets the consequences. Most of the children from the big families Mr. Burke speaks of from the past suffered greatly from lack of space, food and security. A lot of them ended up in orphanges because they could not be taken care of properly, many of the children were treated badly and were sexually assaulted in the orphanages that were suppose to be taking care of them and many died there.

  • Ed Power
    February 25, 2013 - 12:28

    You, Mr. Burke, and your fundementalist compatriots, are the reason why the rest of us - those that live in the reality-based world - fear a return to the theocracy that you so dearly long for. As I've said before, sir, it took thousands of years to rid ourselves of the theocratic ignorance imposed upon us by religious superstition, and we have no desire to see it return. Athiests, unlike religionists, don't claim to have the "One Truth" that all must live by, or die. We recognize the fact that we don't know everything - hence science, and the scientific method - and we seek answers that improve the welfare of all. We respect the individual, and the individuals right to make their own decisions. You demand obedience: blind, unquestioning obedience. You differ little from your fanatical Muslim cousins in seeking to impose your "Truth" upon others. It is just a matter of degree, at least is for now. It would an entirely different matter were your people to gain power. Then we would soon witness the truth in Pitt's observation on power and corruption. It is a very dark and scary realm that you choose to live in, but I can see why it would hold a certain attraction for some people. Everything is black and white. Simple. Your decisions are made for you. Never need to wonder how or why. Follow the rules without question., Do what you are told by your betters. Almost like being a babe in your mother's arms, isn't it, being held to the bosom of Mother Church. I feel very sorry for you.....

  • Mr. Morrison you take a very moral stand on Mr. Alcock's crazy population stratgy.
    February 25, 2013 - 11:18

    Mr. Morrison you express your opinion on this subject in a very moralistic manner. No moral and loving God wants a woman and a man to create children that they can't emotionally and securely support. The belief that it is God's wish is based on man's desire, only, to have unprotected sex because he gets more gratification from it and he therefore forgets the consequences. Most of the children from the big families Mr. Burke speaks of from the past suffered greatly from lack of space, food and security. A lot of them ended up in orphanges because they could not be taken care of properly, many of the children were treated badly and were sexually assaulted in the orphanages that were suppose to be taking care of them and many of them died there.

  • Colin Burke
    February 25, 2013 - 10:43

    Charles, if you really want me to give it a rest, you ought to avoid giving me an excuse, as two others already have done, to suggest that for couples who really wanted children -- my mother wanted eight, but achieved only seven of us, not having married until she was 28 a man 12 years older than she -- a slightly earlier historical period than the current one might have been more conducive to their getting what they really desired more than merely having physical fun.

  • Charles
    February 25, 2013 - 08:34

    Mr. Burke, Will you please give it a rest. People are entitled to their own opinions.. Maybe you could get in touch with Eric Alcock. You two would get along very well with your point of views. A couple could have upwards of twenty children during childbearing years. In all reality, do you and Mr. Alcock really think that in these days people can affford that or even have sufficient accommodations, let alone fed, clothe, educate, etc.? I'm sure our loving, caring God certainly understands.

  • Herb Morrison
    February 24, 2013 - 19:57

    Mr. Burke, what you are saying is that because you believe that what any person does is wrong, that person will be punished. Specifically, anyone who chooses to use articificial methods of birth control, will incur someone's wrath. Since you have acknowleged in your latest post that your sole motivation for making the statements you have made in your latest post is an over-inflated ego,Whose wrath do the users of contraceptives incur? Exactly who will administer this punishment, which you feel those who use contraceptives are destined to incur? The loving, forgiving, and merciful God whom I, as a Christian choose to Worship. The same loving God who was willing to send His only Son to suffer, die, and ascend to Hell in atonement for the sins of all humankind? I think not. Your statements to the contrary represent what you choose to believe, and are free to do so. Your unsubstantiated, ego-driven, judgemental statement that it is an absolutel truth that users of contraceptives are commiting a wrong for which they will incur punishment further reinforces my opinion that you appear, in my opinion to either be delusional, or suffeing from a God complex. Furthermore, as I indicated in an earlier post, I have no desire to engage in a contest with you within the context of this situation. My desire is to state what I believe is Divinely inspired truth pertaining to a situation dealing with morality or the lack thereof, where only God and God alone is fit to stand in judgement of anyone. Your God-like statement that those who employ artificial methods of birth control will incur punishment, appears to me, at least, to provide clear proof of your desire to act as Judge, jury, and executioner of anyone who, according to what in my opinion appears to be your seriously twisted reasoning, you deem to be guilty of a committing a wrong. Personally, I will take my chances and do what I believe to be is Divinely inspired, as opposed to doing what meets with your approval.

  • Marg
    February 24, 2013 - 18:49

    Any comments on some of these posts, Mr. Alcock? You've sure gotten a lot of us angry with such a foolish letter. Who, really, can even afford to have oodles of children in this day and age?

  • Colin Burke
    February 24, 2013 - 17:29

    Mr. Morrison, you are absolutely right about my over-inflated ego. It's so absolutely over-inflated that other people's egos can't impinge on it; it can be affected only by proof that my own ego-inspired opinions are wrong, which you have not yet supplied. Mr. Power, I have not yet tried to refute the "points" you keep "making," because they are not points you make but facts you cite which I trust you enough for me to assume you cite them reliably, and in any case they don't refute any argument of mine, any more than my knowing women right here in Port au Port who lived long and stayed healthy, and reasonably content in their old age, after giving birth to more than fifteen children must refute your general view that the Catholic Church's moral doctrines are products of religious tyranny. I suspect, Mr. Power, that your Roman Catholic upbringing was much like mine: I was given, or at least formed, early an impression that coition was, in Fr. Sattler's words, "a defling kind of 'fun,' a forbidden pleasure somehow justified by marriage," and that God had subjected us to that debasement, "giving us a strong sex drive for the preservation of mankind," to keep himself supplied with worshippers. Any young male with an ounce of self-respect would resent such an imposition and I'm pretty sure I myself did so for years, though I seem to have kept that resentment hidden even from my own consciousness until I saw thorugh what I was "taught" and realized that the power of lust derived from the first humans' having chosen to reject the state of perfect rationality in which God had created them. The fact that child brides are sex slaves in Africa does not deny that people deserve their deeds' effects, for their being slaves is not what they do but what others do to them, for which I believe God will punish those others either with the pains of hell or the sharp sorrow of sincere repentance. As for Mr. Morrison's claim that I would deny the right of other people to make their own choices, I deny nothing of the sort; I acknowledge fully the right of anyone to choose to do anything that is wrong and so to bring upon himself the punishment he will deserve by doing. (That is why I prefer capital punishment for murderers to surveillance of us all.) I am so convinced that people should be free to do wrong if they want to do it, that I want them very much to be clear about the wrong they choose. How's that for freedom of choice? Or would anyone prefer that others be kept ignorant of right and wrong so as to be incapable of choosing anything really wrong? I myself prefer to live in the real world, responsible for my actions (some of which I ought to be far more thoroughly ashamed than as yet I feel).

  • Leah
    February 24, 2013 - 12:10

    Sir, are you "playing with a full deck" ???

  • Ed Power
    February 23, 2013 - 22:32

    You are, Mr. Burke, entitled to your sincerely held beliefs. Unfortunately, your seriously held beliefs have only a distant relationship with reality. You certainly haven't presented any argument "one could not refute", you just keep repeating variations of the same old Bronze Age moral code cited in the Jewish Book of Fairy Tales. Methinks the gentleman doth protesteth too much. You cry foul when your meandering comments and fuzzy reasoning are challenged, but fail to refute any of the points that I make. Points which, unlike yours, are based on historical records and factual evidence, not the fireside tales of illiterate goatherds. I guess the abject failure of "Purity Pledges" and abstinence "education" programs in the old Confederate States is more of Satan's work - as he and his evil minions undermine the godly work of Pat Robertson, John Hagee and our late and unlamented Pope - and not because of it's complete ignorance of human physiological and psychological development? A world population of 7 billion people - soon to be 10.5 billion - and the best solution that you and your fundementalist friend's can provide is "Just say NO" and "Sex is a SIN"? Oh. Right. Jesus will be back any day now to sort it all out.....

  • Jerome
    February 23, 2013 - 21:12

    Mr. Alcock, You must not have any common sense whatsoever. You seem like a Reader and do research to me, so why not read more into the early days of the Popes and the Vatican and the Catholic Church and all the "corruption and sin" that has been going on for centuries inside the Vatican walls, and certainly outside. It's the richest Organization in the world. For heaven's sake, just observe Vatican City alone! While all the Popes, etc, lived in the lap of luxury, at the same times millions upon millions of people were suffering and dying horrible lingering deaths of starvation, contaminated water, no medical care, shacks for housing, etc. In past decades, the Popes, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, etc., KNEW all about the sexual perversions of clergy (not just the priests) on defenceless, fearful little BOYS and did absolutely nothing about it, except maybe transfer them to another parish or country.. This way of living was certainly NOT intended by God. If your views are so strong, why is it you have only two children?

  • Herb Morrison
    February 23, 2013 - 19:56

    Mr. Burke. Further to my last post. If you choose to believe that contraception is wrong that is your choice. However, if you believe that your opinion represents absolute, indisputable truth you are at best mistaken and at worse possibly suffering from a God complex of some sort. No mere mortal can claim to have a the inside track on what constitutes absolute within the context of any situation. Any argument to the contrary , made by any mortal being, is incredible. As I suggested in an earlier post, perhaps your high opinion of your own interpretation of what constitutes truth, is moreso the product of an over-inflated ego as opposed to being a product of Divine inspiration.

  • Herb Morrison
    February 23, 2013 - 17:18

    Mr. Burke, I state my opinions because I am free to do so. Whether or not you consider my opinions of your views to represent any kind of effective refutation of your argument against the use of artificial methods of birth control is of no interest to me. I would suggest that before you post again that you consider controling what appears to be a somewhat over-inflated ego. Furthermore I strongly suggest that you re-read your Gospels. As a Christian, you should remember that Jesus did not conduct His earthly Ministry nor did He encourage His Diciples to conduct their earthly Ministries, as if they were involved in some sort of contest. You appear to be obsessed with winning, something which Christ taught by example, is not a Christian concept. I am not obsessed with winning, I am inspired to speak what I believe to be the truth, particularly as it pertains to matters of morality, and moving on.

  • Sick to death of religious zealots.
    February 23, 2013 - 14:05

    Sick extreme religious zealots don't mind one bit bringing children into the world whom they know won't be cared for properly. After all the church's need for a fresh supply of little children to satisfy the sexual needs of the clerics within have to be satisfied! Don't they already know that children who are sexually abused by clerics become very sick and go on to cause grave crimes in the community? I am sure I would be very sick too, if I had been abused by a cleric, someone whom we are supposed to trust . Oh My God on second thought how sick is a person who would sexually abuse a child. It is pure evil and to think a cleric would do such an evil deed is very sick indeed.

  • Colin Burke
    February 23, 2013 - 11:36

    So, Mr. Morrison, I am entitled to my own opinion, but only if that opinion does not consist in believing that contraception is indisputably wrong? Is there any other kind of conduct I'm not allowed to believe indisputably wrong, even if that should be my own honest opinon sincerely held. It seems to me that I have not myself said contraception is indisputably wrong but that I have only presented an argument you could not refute which if accepted would show that contraception is indisputably wrong. The Skeptical Cynic, though not as frankly identifiable as you always are, at least attempted to refute that argument, with a response that on the face of it is highly reasonable. Mr. Power, that virtuoso violinist, just keeps sounding that one shrill note of mocking scorn. S. Cynic, I can answer you only thus: Contraception looks to me like discharging a firearm after thoroughly stopping up the barrel: it is not in its essence a process dictated by right reason. Further, the purpose of human generation (coition) is to perpetuate at least the possibility, if not to guarantee it will be actual, that some part of creation made of mere matter will enjoy being aware that it deserves to enjoy what is good, or else to endure something detrimental because it has done wrong. What serves that purpose ought not to be directed to lesser purposes while denying that one. Also people who frustrate a purpose they ought to intend deserve to have that attempt frustrated, as might happen when contraception failed. Such arguments may not actually convince anyone but anyone who does understand them might be able to appreciate Catholic moral doctrine as not simply an irrationally arbitrary whim of an elderly bachelor who happens to be "boss." (We already get too much of what is truly arbitrary from bosses in business, which is the sort of thing a manly man ought really to resent far more than a Pope's or a bishop's honest attempts to convince others of what they believe to be true and necessary to one's eternally being aware that one deserves what is ultimately the best that a person can enjoy.)

  • Ed Power
    February 22, 2013 - 18:48

    . You may have only one tinny and out-of-tune little drum, Mr. Burke, but you do like to beat it to death. I`m quite sure all those poor, illiterate child brides in Africa, Asia and other parts of the world; the widows who are passed from one brother to another like cattle upon the first brother's death; the women who are serially raped during wars and other conflicts; and those women who, because they belong to certain paternalistic and misogynistic cultural and - most frequently - religious groups, would be suprised to learn that are "deserving of the effects of what they do". Maybe they fall under your generous "beasts that perish" exemption, since they are "simply slaves" anyway. This is what results from the lack of a basic education and access to decent medical care. Perhaps, Mr. Burke, if your Evangelical and fundementalist brethren in the old Confederacy - the US Bible Belt - were to teach their children about sex, sexually transmitted diseases and family planning, they wouldn't suffer from the highest illiteracy rates, highest poverty rates, lowest high school graduation rates, lowest per capita income and highest teenage birth rates in the United States; statistics that rival those from the Third World. These true "effects of what they do" are the direct result of the religous fundementalist mindset, where everything is determined by deities and demons, and education is looked upon as an anathema. Poor mythical Eve was tossed out of Eden for tasting from the Forbidden Tree of Knowledge, and the Abrahamic religions - especially the Christian ones - have been punishing Eve and her female children ever since by keeping them barefoot pregnant and uneducated. The Bronze Age Biblical view of procreation made sense in its day, when life was - as the adage goes - "nasty, brutish and short". Male "seed" that was wasted, was not being used to produce the farmers, goatherds and warriors needed to feed your tribe and protect it from another one. Women that failed to produce the required number of babies - preferably male - were of little use to the tribe. Women, the surplus ones, also made for a handy harem (great for the menfolk) or decent trade bait to cement an alliance with a rival tribe. I'm sure that many women in the Western World dream of those halcyon days each night when they close their eyes. Who amongst them would want to be a lawyer, engineer, doctor or scientist when they could spend their days at home tending to their man and producing litters of children for their church like feral cats?

  • Skeptical Cynic
    February 22, 2013 - 15:57

    Contraception is right because persons deserve the effects of what they do, so that people who use contraception while doing what ordinarily makes people parents don’t deserve to be parents, especially if they choose freely to do what would otherwise make them parents… that is… to use contraception.

  • Herb Morrison
    February 22, 2013 - 15:49

    Mr. Burke, while I respect your right to your opinion concerning the issue of contraception, I have no respect for your stating that contraception is indisputably wrong. Nor do I place any crediability in your undocumented assumptionthat anyone who uses an artifical method of birth control is doing so in order to escape taking responsibility for his/her actions.If what you intend to say is that in your opinion contraception is wrong, fine. However, you have not chosen to say that. Instead you insist on ranting in God-like fashion, with flagrant disregard for a person's right to choose. Remember, Mr. Burke, God Almighty, in the person of Jesus, taught Christians, by example, that we are to respect a persons' right to choose when He stated that God "stands at the door and knocks." God does not attempt to force Himself/herself or God's Christian principles, choosinstead to allow a person to exercise their right to freedom of choice. Are you attempting to play God? Or are you attempting to play Devil's advocate? In my opinion, your latest post amounts to philosophical rhetoric, which flies in the face of the most basic of Christ's teachings. Finally, who are you to decide what anyone's "just reward" should be.

  • Colin Burke
    February 22, 2013 - 09:46

    Contraception is wrong because persons deserve the effects of what they do, so that people who do what ordinarily makes people parents deserve to be parents, especially if they choose in full freedom to do that and are not simply slaves to instinct like the beasts that perish. I'm inclined to sympathize with any who admit to that latter affliction and so try to escape its natural consequence, but that is not an admission I've yet heard from advocates of contraception and it is not one I expect to hear from people brought up to believe that "high selfy-steam" is the greatest good.

  • Colin Burke
    February 22, 2013 - 09:03

    Contraception is wrong because people deserve the effects of what they do, so that people who do what would make them parents deserve to be parents. They deserve it especially if they choose freely to do what would make them parents; that is, if they are not simply slaves to instinct like the beasts. In the latter case, I would be somewhat inclined to sympathize with their trying to evade their just deserts, but I have to say that, so far, this is not an excuse to which I have heard the selfy-steaming often lay claim.

  • Corporate Psycho
    February 22, 2013 - 07:29

    Mr. Alcock, (I hope you never used your real name) I am all about bitching at the government for various reasons but this is just plain weird.

  • Ed Power
    February 21, 2013 - 21:27

    Ah, yes, Mr. Alcock, the good old pre-contraception, pre-family planning days. When women - married women only, of course - could expect to be pregnant for most of their adult lives, bearing litters of babies for church and country. When men would work from dawn 'til dusk to try and make enough money to feed, clothe and house God's little gifts, women would work 24/7/365 to nurture and tend them, and both would drop dead from sheer exhaustion by age forty. How can forget those happy days? I can only assume that you are unaware of the fact that the human population of our tiny planet passed 7 billion on March12, 2012, and that it will - if current trends continue - reach 10.5 billion people by 2050. Most of those happy billions will live in countries with poor soil, insufficient water, inadequate housing, waste and pollution problems, famine, disease and poverty. Yes, sir, by all means, let us do away with condoms and common sense. The Roman Catholic archbishop can stuff his disclosure " to about 190.000 local Catholics (of which I was one, as an indoctrinated child) on the official teachings of the church on contraception" in his......silly little hat, and shut up. He, and his church, with their appalling anti-contraception activities in Africa have lost any credibilty or authority on the matter. Out of curiousity, have you asked any of the people who will be directly affected by your "Plan To Re-Populate The Province", you know....the women, how they feel about your brainstorm?

  • Herb Morrison
    February 21, 2013 - 17:47

    Mr. Alcock. What nonsense, the very suggestion that any person is totally morally bankrupt, simply because they choose to utilize contraceptive is absolutely absurd. A Ms. Coleman penned a letter entitled “A time For Abstinence,” which was published in The Telegram earlier this week. Both your letter and Ms. Coleman’s letter, in my opinion, represent a brazen attempt to force your perverse concept that any person who uses “Birth Control, is immoral to the core. What rubbish. Furthermore, if the use of artificial methods of birth control is, as both yourself and Ms. Coleman appear to claim, an indication of morally degenerate, unchristian behaviour, let me suggest to you that, according to the teachings of Christ, as recorded in Scripture, so is the practice of attempting to ram your particular version of Christian values down anybody’s throat. Jesus specifically taught His Disciples to speak what they were inspired to speak and move on. Jesus didn’t teach His Disciples to either pass judgement on anyone or to ram the teachings of Christ down everybody’s throat.

  • Why have people played a deaf ear to the crimes going on around them since the beignning of time?
    February 21, 2013 - 17:09

    Jason, if only Mr. Alcock was as aware as you are of the hardships that are caused by people having children they can't properly take care of emothionally and otherwise and aware of those who profess to save souls but who instead commit some of the gravest abuses on children, known to mankind, sexual abuse, the very crime that is responsible for most all other crimes that exists in the world today, yes, indeed if they were aware what a wonderful world we could be living in. Why have people paid a deaf ear to what has been going on around them since the beginning of time?

  • liam mckenna
    February 21, 2013 - 13:06

    '40 000 lost from census logs' - yea 40 000 less unwanted abused and neglected children matured into career criminals and professional layabouts - not the sort we would miss. It is my personal opinion that you are living in the dark ages if you let your belief in an imaginary creature lead your morality. Why I have to read this drivel in my paper is a question best left to the editors.

  • Doug Smith
    February 21, 2013 - 11:43

    Mr. Alcock, would you be kind enough to explain to me how contraception is a “destructive and unjust practise” and if you don’t mind could you also explain how the Catholic Church, can as you claim, have “moral truths” ? I would have thought that given this church’s history just the opposite has been demonstrated not only in the past but currently. Doug Smith, GFW

  • Jason
    February 21, 2013 - 07:40

    are you for real? if i put on a condom, i'm not immoral, how dare you judge me. I think men who sexually abuse little boys are immoral. i think a huge world wide organization led by a bloated bureaucracy that got rich milking money from poor saps that were told they'd be forever in hell unless they did exactly as told is immoral. i think people who can't open their eyes and think for themselves and that judge others based on their limited values are immoral.

    • conrad
      February 21, 2013 - 15:10

      Well put, Jason.