Coming & Going

By now I suppose you've seen the story about the British preemie left to die because it was against the rationing rules to treat him, even though he'd have been "worth saving" if he'd been born just 48 hours later.

And WaPo this morning runs a story about British Greens who argue the best way to end pollution is to prevent polluters from being born.
There is no possibility of drastically reducing total carbon emissions, while at the same time paying no attention whatever to the drastic increase in the number of carbon emitters," said Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, a British nonprofit that sponsored the report and whose goal is to rein in population growth in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. "For reasons of an irrational taboo on the subject, [family planning] has never made it onto the agenda, and this is extremely damaging to the planet."

They specifically don't want any more American babies, by the way.
What is new, in the British study and in a separate report from Oregon State University, are statistics that show exactly how much each life -- and especially each American life -- adds to the world's emissions.
Everyone denies they want to force people not to have children, but, excuse me, why bring it up as a policy concern otherwise?

Here's what that old kook Paul VI said in Humanae Vitae, that prophetic and wise document which even most Catholics reject.

From Section 17, Consequences of Artificial Methods [of birth control], the Pope foresaw the lowering of moral standards, the decline of respect for women and, most pertinent to the topic at hand:
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Isn't it interesting that one of Paul VI's precise objections to artificial contraception was his concern that government might end up in everyone's bedrooms at the cost of personal liberty and responsibility?