College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

The Grumbling Hive: Families having too many children should be taxed

By Nathan Shull

Columnist

|

Published: Sunday, November 1, 2009

Updated: Sunday, November 1, 2009

Families in developed nations who have more than two children should be subject to an overpopulation tax.

I recently spoke with a father who had seven children because, as a Catholic, he believed the use of birth control methods such as withdrawal and contraceptives constitutes a mortal sin.

Support for this belief has been drawn from passages in Genesis 38:8-10 where Onan was commanded to marry and have children with his dead brother’s wife.
Verses 9-10 say: “And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground ... And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.”

The Catholic Church advocates Natural Family Planning (NFP) — the avoidance of sexual relations when the female is fertile — as a biblically viable method of avoiding pregnancy.
All other forms of birth control, excepting abstinence, are considered sinful, even within a marriage.

To advocate NFP but to condemn methods such as withdrawal — “coitus interruptus” — is hypocritical.

“Any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation ­— whether as an end or as a means” is prohibited, wrote Pope Paul VI in the encyclical letter “Humanae Vitae.”

But to engage in sexual intercourse only when the woman is unlikely to become pregnant is intended to prevent pregnancy to the same extent as Onan in Genesis, when he “spilled it on the ground.”

The intent of the alleged sinner should determine the existence of sin, rather than the method he or she used.

But the true problem is not whether certain people believe in the use of birth control.
The fault lies with those willing to have children in excess of what is needed to maintain the population.

The global population growth rate has decreased “from more than 2.0 percent to 1.5 percent a year over the past 30 years,” according to Worldbank.org. “But in the meantime, in absolute numbers it is still growing faster than ever before — by about 230,000 people a day.”

The world population is projected to level off between 9 and 10 billion by the end of the century.

Let’s look at this issue from a unique angle.

“More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions,” writes New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin. “And recent research has resulted in renewed coverage of the notion that one of the cheapest ways to curb emissions in coming decades would be to provide access to birth control for tens of millions of women around the world who say they desire it.”

Revkin asserts this is merely “a thought experiment.”

This idea, although perhaps farfetched and certainly controversial, is a creative way to reduce the population and achieve a reduction in carbon emissions at a lower cost than using green technology.

The decision to produce a large number of offspring is a personal decision which only the parents can make.

But if they decide to have children in excess of the amount required to maintain the population, society should be compensated for the extra damage and burden placed upon it.

In a time when global water and food shortages threaten the lives of millions around the world, the only responsible action is the use of birth control or the introduction of market incentives to curb the continued growth.

God may want us to be fruitful and multiply, but I sincerely doubt he desires the destruction of the world through overpopulation.

Nathan Shull is a 35-year-old finance junior from Seattle.  Follow him on Twitter @TDR_nshull



Contact Nathan Shull at nshull@lsureveille.com

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

11 comments

Tate
Thu Nov 5 2009 10:49
There are a great number of ridiculous assertions in this article that many of the other commenters have brought to light. But the most laughable assertion is your mention of "carbon footprints", a concept predicated on the belief in the global warming farce. Carbon dioxide is not pollution. You should really invest some time in more research before you write another article showcasing your ignorance.
Blaise
Wed Nov 4 2009 00:45
You are incorrect on your scare/hype population figures. The West has been steadily declining in birth rates and you would think that's good, right? Did you know everyone in the world could fit in the state of Texas and each have 1,000 sq. ft. apiece? Are you in favor of destroying our future work force? Who's going to pay social security for you and me? Oh, that's right your plan is to kill or prevent conception of those who would pay for it as well as destroying funding for other social plans to help the poor. Are you okay with 1/4 of contraceptives acting as abortifacients (meaning they cause abortion for the newly concieved human being; it is a scientific fact acknowledged by the drug manufacturers themselves) and other methods of abortion? Are you okay with contraception continuing to be a key factor in destroying marriages? Are you for destroying the largest payers of taxes- families which don’t meet your minimum number of children- by taxing them to death. How nice. Your plan is oppressive and in no time would resemble the one child policy in China. Since saving the planet by eliminating human life is so important to you, why not move to China? Or will you kill yourself to save the earth? Which little nieces, nephews, friends' babies would you wish were never born in order that you might save the planet? You say you care about "global water and food shortages (that) threaten the lives of millions around the world." Hmmm.
Frogmeat
Mon Nov 2 2009 23:49
What does the title and first sentence of this article have to do with the following rant about the nature of reproductive sin for Catholics?!
Sue
Mon Nov 2 2009 22:33
I don't understand what emissions has to do with the Catholics making this choice.

The true question is if this belief is religious or "man" made. I see no control in the women's hands with this choice. Yet male Catholics freely talk about how correct this choice is.
What about Catholics women who have had to have a hysterectomy. Do they no longer have sex since the purpose of sex now would be pleasure not procreation. If Catholics still practice after such a procedure then arent they going against the entire teaching as to the reason they dont use "artificial" controceptive to begin with. So if a couple in the Catholic church cant conceive a child on their own are they not allowed to use outside help, such as hormonal injections? Or is their only choice adoption?
Why are women outside these teachings more outraged than men outside the teaching? Why is the majority of the responses on here from men? (assuming Carol is a women, 1 in 5 responses are from women) Why isnt there more defense of this from catholic women?
I think that just like the Catholic church was designed to control the masses, this practice is used to control women by men. That's what your article should have been about, How women in the Catholic Church are controlled by the men and their crazy teachings!

Your name
Mon Nov 2 2009 22:02
I might not agree with the tax proposition, but calling out the ridiculous Catholic logic is worthwhile.
Doug Pearson
Mon Nov 2 2009 19:00
The difference between NFP and contraception is akin to the difference between working for money and stealing money... one is licit and moral the other is not. For you to say that not having sex when you don't want children is the same as perverting the act of sex by ensuring artificially that the life giving aspect is negated, is simply poor logic.

As to your insipid comments about overpopulation... you may want to actually do some research about demographic trends.

Peace.

Your name
Mon Nov 2 2009 18:28
Mr. Shull, NFP is not (solely) about 'preventing pregnancy'. It is a wonderful approach to family planning that accepts children-- always. Please do your research. In addition, I would suggest that we prohibit ALL companion animals first before we go after the world's children. I am sure this would solve a good part of your 'carbon footprinting' concerns. And I agree with Chris in VA that all newspapers should have a HUGE tax for cutting down our natural oxygen-generating resource.

Carol on Kauai

Cain Chiasson
Mon Nov 2 2009 17:46
Mr Shull, What you are suggesting is an infringement on my rights to have as many children as I can support. I think the issue should be putting a stop to people who have chidren they cannot support ie.. welfare babies... If the government regulated its financing of government supported children better then there would be a surplus of extra money that could be allotted to reducing our carbon footprint...
Lawrence Toups - LSU Alumnus and Catholic
Mon Nov 2 2009 14:53
Maybe your parents should have stopped having children before you were born, Mr. Shull, in order to reduce their "carbon footprint". Your argument is weak, your reasoning flawed, your attitude selfish and arrogant, and your writing vapid.

By the way, what is a 35-year old man still doing a junior in college?

Chris In VA
Mon Nov 2 2009 14:26
Funny, when people complain about overpopulation, they always want to eliminate someone **else.**

Children are a great gift, and I'm sure your parents thought the same of you when you were born 35 years ago. If "all men are created equal," then those other kids enjoy life just as much as you do. They have just as much right to go to LSU as you do, and to pay taxes to support you in your old age.

By the way, yo apparently admire the opinions expressed by the New York Times (a very anti-Catholic paper). Doesn't the New York Times kill millions of oxygen-generating trees to put out its paper? Do you think they need some of your advice on how to deal with that?

Just maybe? Perhaps a newspaper tax?

Good luck in school, and thank God for the kids that surround you there.

Wade
Mon Nov 2 2009 09:03
Mr. Shull, obviously you do not think of children as children, but only in terms of cost and resources and how they affect our planet, as if they were a problem to be dealt with. You need to get your head out of your ass and see the truth: Children are human beings, not numbers on a chart. What's wrong with a man having more than two children? Nothing. What's wrong with birth control? It deliberately prevents a life from being created because it is deemed "inconvenient" or may cause more carbon emissions according to your article. Your "unique angle" does not treat people as human beings, rather it portrays us as animals that cause problems for the planet. Once we think of ourselves as expendable, we're already doomed, and it wont be because of global warming or carbon emissions, it will come from our own selfishness and refusal to recognize human lives as lives.






log out