No, that isn't what I'm saying at all. I was simply calling you out on the idea that contraception leads to socialism. I used South American Catholic countries with generally high birthrates as an example of your point simply being wrong.
In general you tend to find that wealth leads to lower birthrates. It's a fairly consistent phenomenon across the world. Free market countries tend to have an advantage in the wealth department, and their birthrates decline. Probably largely to due to all the choices in life available to wealthier people (travel, hobbies, etc). Sometimes you get a morally sick country like Russia that is growing simply because it had nowhere to go but up as it dumps socialism, yet still has declining birth rates.
The point is, contraception does not lead to socialism. The Catholic church is dominant in central and south American. The birth rates are generally high, and yet many of those countries have been absolutely ruined by socialist policies. Unfortunately, part of the problem is the Catholic church tends to be supportive of massive redistributive policies, the people often listen to the priests and bishops, and the countries fester in ruin because of those terrible ideas.
I ask you again, why is it so hard for many Catholics to admit their church's failings on economic issues?. Along with being wrong on immigration, gun control, etc. Is it really so hard to just admit the Pope and RCC leadership is wrong on the economic stuff? It's not like we can't agree the Catholic church does do some incredibly great works. I'm not some Catholic hater. I'm just endlessly irritated that the RCC takes these populist left positions that influence so many people and wind up doing so much damage, economically, throughout the world.
Again, this is contrary to what de Tocqueville writes about.
America has been substantially better off than every other developed nation in this category - even now, and has been for a very long time. This is something de Tocqueville established as a reason why Americans were special - because they eschewed contraception.
Look at the growth of wealth in the United States from 1870 to say, 1910. Compare it with the growth of wealth from 1970 to now. You say that contraception brings about wealth to the united states - why then was America growing faster than any other developed nation was was the richest at tehe same year.
Look at Sandra Fluke. Tell me that contraception doesn’t contribute to the decline of children born in wedlock, and the subsequent increase in the use of social services. It’s all right there.
Contraception use = greater socialism. Now, you’re claim is simply that Mexico was socialist before contraception use, I’m not sure how that negates my argument that contraception has transformed America into a much more socialist nation.
Again you are confusing what you think is the teaching of the Church with the actual teaching of the Church. That's akin to thinking Barry Soetoro is an authority on the Bill of Rights.
Although you won't do it, you'd be well served to obtain and read the following for starters:
