I have been married for about 20 years now (with a little hiatus between marriages). Had we not used any contraceptive methods, I'd have about 20 children. While it could be argued that propagating my genes would be in the best interest of mankind, I think that 20 kids would be way too much. Of the various contraceptive methods we used, every one of them prevented fecundation and, therefore, not a single life was lost to them. This is not destruction of life, but the means to prevent its creation.
People are entitled their own religious ideas, but nobody has the right to impose those values on someone else. If giving access to contraceptives to someone who wants them will make lives better, I'm in favor.
Having a larger number of humans disregarding our ability to feed and educate them is cruelty, pure and simple. It's not investing in human potential unless you are able to ensure all of them live to their fullest potential.
"People are entitled their own religious ideas, but nobody has the right to impose those values on someone else."
Actually we do in most democracies, just in the form of a vote. The reason behind our votes are almost always "religious", even if they aren't explicitly so. For example, the statement: "If giving access to contraceptives to someone who wants them will make lives better, I'm in favor." That's based on a belief that you hold, that you can't prove one way or another.
Why would that be wrong outside a specific set of religious values? It's not atheists (or the defenders of a secular state) that should prove a religion wrong. It's the participants in that religion that should prove their deity exists and its moral code should be applied to everyone regardless of their opinion.
I'm not saying anything like that. I'm just saying that in a democracy, individuals vote based on their world-views. Sometimes that world-view is informed by a religion, sometimes it's informed by "spirituality", or sometimes by something else. But whatever it may be, a person's world-view is always informed by ideals that can't be proven one way or another.
I have to disagree. Ideals informed from religions cannot be proven (they could, actually, if the deities cooperated, but, while they don't, there can't be proof) but decisions informed by scientific knowledge can and that's a very important difference.
That's unrelated to my point. I'm not talking about science or religion. I'm saying that everyone holds some unprovable views about how society works best, and they cast their votes based on these ideals, whether they're religious or not.
People are entitled their own religious ideas, but nobody has the right to impose those values on someone else. If giving access to contraceptives to someone who wants them will make lives better, I'm in favor.
Having a larger number of humans disregarding our ability to feed and educate them is cruelty, pure and simple. It's not investing in human potential unless you are able to ensure all of them live to their fullest potential.