Is Contraception Dangerous to Society?

Rick Santorum has recently caused a stir by suggesting that contraception is dangerous to society. Let's take a look at what might have happened if over the course of history we implemented a Planned Parenthood style two-child policy. What worthy people would not have been born? And, what unworthy persons would have survived?

...

First, let's decide on a Planned Parenthood style program. First, each person is entitled to two children. This means that you are not disqualified from existing if you have older half-siblings. Second, if your older siblings die before you would have been born, you are allowed to exist. We will only consider birth order, though we think Planned Parenthood might want to eliminate persons with birth-defects, as well, and there are two on our list of geniuses who might have been candidates for abortion. We are also allowing Leonardo Da Vinci to survive, even though he was born out of wedlock, which almost certainly means he was the result of an unplanned pregnancy.

...

I found a list of the top 50 geniuses of all time:

...

http://4mind4life.com/blog/2008/03/30/list-of-geniuses-top-50-influential-minds/

...

Albert Einstein

Leonardo Da Vinci

Nikola Tesla

Sir Isaac Newton

Stephen Hawking

Michelangelo

Archimedes

Warren Buffet

Swami Vivekananda

Samuel Johnson

Immanuel Kant

Aristotle

Pablo Picasso

Niles Bohr

Thomas Jefferson

Plato

Winston Churchill

Benjamin Franklin

Thomas Edison

Daniel Tammet

William Shakespeare

Kim Peek

Ludwig van Beethoven

Srinivasa Ramanujan

Johann Sebastian Bach

Wolfgang Amedeus Mozart

Sir Francis Drake

George Berkeley

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Socrates

Linus Pauling

Christopher Michael Langan

Michael Faraday

Blaise Pascal

Galileo Galilei

Martin Luther

Robert Boyle

John Locke

Charles Darwin

Johannes Kepler

Napoleon Bonaparte

Garry Kasparov

John Stuart Mill

Rene Descartes

George Washington

Miguel de Cervantes

Francois Marie-Arouet (Voltaire)

Baruch de Spinoza

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

...
We are not going to argue the content. We will just stipulate that these are probably people we would like to have around.

...

And this list of the top 16 mass murderers of all time:

...

http://thepirata.com/top-mass-murderers-in-history/

...

Slobodan Milosevic

Harry S. Truman

Genghis Khan

Benito Mussolini

Idi Amin

Saddam Hussein

Suharto

Jean Kambanda

Leonid Brezhnev

Menghistu

Kim Il Sung

Pol Pot

Hideki Tojo

Adolf Hitler

Joseph Stalin

Mao Ze-Dong

...

Again, for the sake of argument, we are not questioning the content, though we might not agree with Harry Truman being on the list.

...

Using the Internet as a source, and if anyone would like to correct anything, please let me know, I found data on siblings and birth order for most of these individuals. However, I did not find enough information to apply the rules for the following:

...

Archimedes

Samuel Johnson

Socrates

John Locke

Garry Kasparov

Jean Kambanda

Menghistu

...

Of the worthy group, we would lose the following:

...

Nikola Tesla

Immanuel Kant

Aristotle

Thomas Jefferson

Plato

Benjamin Franklin

Thomas Edison

Johann Sebastian Bach

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Michael Faraday

Galileo Galilei

Martin Luther

Robert Boyle

Charles Darwin

Rene Descartes

George Washington

Miguel de Cervantes

Francois Marie-Arouet (Voltaire)

...

Of the mass murdering group, we only lose one, Pol Pot.

...

Imagine how history would have unfolded if Planned Parenthood had succeeded with their vision. Is it dangerous?

Why Obama Picked A Fight With The Catholics?

Why, oh, why? Here are some possibilities:

1) The smartest president ever elected made a mistake. Well, that's hardly likely. Let's assume he knows exactly what he is doing.

2) The president wants to make an ideological point about the value of birth control. This one hardly seems likely. No doubt the president thinks birth control should be available, but it already is, without the Catholic Church paying for it in most states. And, most people disagree with the Church's position already. It just does not seem likely that many people would be persuaded.

3) The president needs to shore up his political base of liberal women's groups. I give this one very little credibility. Liberal women's groups would not hold it against the president if he did not require Catholic institutions to provide birth control, especially if he did it quietly, with little fanfare.

4) The president would like to change the subject from the economy and focus attention on social policies, where he thinks he has an advantage. Possibly, possibly. Remember the George Stephanopoulos focus on contraception in one of the Republican debates that appeared to come out of nowhere? Over 8% unemployment and the world in turmoil, and the pressing question is about contraception? Well, perhaps, the president is doubling-down on changing the subject. Don't elect Republicans! They'll take away your birth control!

5) The president would like to take over health care in this country and Catholic institutions are standing in his way. Hmm. Are Catholic institutions standing in his way? Well, if you believe that President Obama's grand plan to control health care costs involves rationing of care, well, yes, the Catholics are going to be a problem. Catholics value life, all life, from unborn fetuses to disabled persons who cannot care for themselves. Progressives, while they advocate many similar positions to Catholics in terms of social justice, do not value these forms of life and advocate abortion, physician-assisted suicide, and even euthanasia. These are articles of faith for progressives, so if they are to take over health care, they need the Catholic church out. And, how better to go about it then to have the Catholics voluntarily withdraw from their social service ministries because they cannot abide requirements to provide contraceptives, something on which most of the Catholic laity do not agree with the Church's teachings? If this conjecture seems far-fetched, consider the recent action of the Diocese of Peoria, Illinois, where Catholic Charities divested its adoption and foster care services because it could not agree with mandated policies on gay adoption. The government wants the Catholic Church out of the social services business, which explains why the Obama administration granted the Catholic Church a waiver of one year to "adjust" to the ruling. Could "adjust" mean get out of the way? A fight with the Catholic Church is coming. Why not have it now?

Putting Catholics in a position where they must choose between their moral teachings, or their social service ministries, is despicable. It is an effort to isolate the Catholic clergy from the Catholic laity, and is wedge politics at its worst. To say that you cannot run a hospital if you are not willing to provide free contraceptives to your employees is tyrannical, un-American, and if the Catholic position on the morality of contraception is correct, completely evil. The smartest president ever elected certainly understands this.