Developing Countries: Birth Control?

I was having a chat with a particular member who stated that people in developing (they used the term "third world") countries should not have children they cannot support. They did not state that they believed any laws should be passed or anything of that sort. They just stated that they felt it to be morally wrong.I would like to disagree with that statement, and open it up for debate. I think that all people have the same moral rights when it comes to having children. It is their choice, and they can exercise the right if they wish. I would also like to point out that a well fed child in America does a lot more damage to the world than an entire community of starving babies in Africa. If my information is wrong, please someone correct me Maybe social issues, or coffee house?J0N

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Well, it must be convenient for them to live in a more privileged society where he/she is morally secure in deciding to have children. I would like to disagree with that member as well. I understand the argument they are making, but the resolution they offered is tantamount to disfranchisement. I'm sure many of us have wondered why people's in the poorer parts of the globe seem to have inordinate amount of children. It seems that if a family limited themselves to one or two children, they would be more able to adequately care for the children they have, rather than adding more hungry mouths to feed.There are several factors for why this is. For starters, there is a lack of contraceptives in that region because contraceptives cost money. To mitigate the effect of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, perhaps we should be sending over free contraceptives. The second contributing factor is probably a lack of awareness. An increase in awareness would also help to mitigate these effects. Abstinence-before-marriage should also be taught as a virtue, not as something that is only for religious weirdos.But even though the variables I raised may be the case, it doesn't take away the fact that people are allowed to have children. What did this person suggest? That we model after China who forcibly limits its citizens to one child per familial unit?Anyway, that's my take on it.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

what said person doesn't understand is that people in developing countries don't support their children. this is a phenomenon exclusive to developed nations where children become leeches. in developing nations, large families are vital to survival and every pair of hands contributes to pursuing wellbeing. generally, only infants are "useless" and must be cared for. but no, you and your friend need to do a little research in this field. i wrote a paper on population control policies in india and china and it's a very complex situation. the best thing to control the population and improve wellbeing is to improve education and improve opportunities for women. the entirety of the literature supports this. passing out condoms is good; passing out birth control is good; but forcing it upon people and depriving them of their livelihood is not good.

As far as impact on the global enviroment is concerned, an American child uses the resources of about seven Bangladeshi children. Of course, local population densities will place stress on the local environment, but what are the local people to do?Second, it has been shown that providing education to girls has a big, big impact on the size of families in Africa. The more educated a girl is, the longer she will wait to have her first child, and the fewer children she will have overall. If someone is concerned about third world over population, then suggest supporting girls' education.Finally, remember that poverty in the third world is largely due to continued exploitation by the Western capitalist structure. In recent decades, every time a country has met the IMF's demands to cut taxes, cut support services, open the economy to foreign investment, and loosen currency controls, living conditions decrease dramatically, and this is not temporary. Basically, the reason people in the third world cannot support their children is because they are supporting Jon's friend's children.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

Agreed. Having a large family, "many hands", allows for more members of the family to carry out needed work: caring for other members of the family, tending to livestock, crops, etc. Strongly agree. It may seem harsh and tyrannical, but China's policy of enforcing the "one child per family" has lowered their nations Total Fertility Rate. A double-edged sword, it seems.

And selective abortion and infanticide of females. It will be interesting to see what happens in China when all those boys grow up and realize they all can't find wives.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

There is a difference between a right and an unspoken moral obligation. I would say that anybody in the world has the right to breed as many times as he/she wants. However, that does not mean that it is moral for the person to breed as many times as he/she wants. With bearing children comes responsibility. One of those responsibilities is doing everything you can to nurture and protect your young.With that said, I could also make the argument that everyone has a right to pop out and then abandon the child. See the difference?Therefore, I think that everyone has the right to make babies. I also think that everyone has the responsibility to not make their children suffer starvation, and one of the ways to do that is either have 1 or 2 children where he knows he can support or not have any at all.It is easy for people like us who lives in a first world country to sit on our high thrones and make the argument for a right like breeding. But what about the children? Jon, I'm sorry, but this is one of the most unempathetic statement I've seen. What about the children? What about the children that were forced into a world of slow starvation, disease, parasites, and abuse? What about them? While we are sitting here arguing about how people have a right to have sex or make babies, children are out there starving and not have any right at all. What about them?There's a reason why my spouse and I have decided not to have any children of our own. Why breed when there are millions of children out there waiting to be adopted? The sooner people realize that there is a difference between a basic human right (ex: breed) and moral obligation (ex: love the children who haven't got any right) the sooner these children can stop suffering.Actually, you don't have to go very far to see children in ragged clothing and having to beg for food. Here in the states there are plenty of children who were brought into this world and not have any protection or nuturing.So, excuse me while I sit on my high throne and say that sometimes people value rights such as the right breed enough that they are blind to see just how many children suffer because apparently some people just can't stop using this right.Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Too late. The difference is already in the tens, if not hundreds, of millions. Then of course we really don't know for sure. In china, with its 1 child per family policy, people have found ways to beat this policy and not kill their baby girls. One way is to not register them at all.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Capitalist enterprises need to stop sending jobs overseas for a few reasons. Yes, sending jobs overseas will cut down on costs because of cheap labor and does have temporal advantages. However, these companies aren't seeing the big picture. If you keep taking jobs away from Americans, the economy is going to take a nosedive without generating new jobs. Without jobs, people don't have the money to buy those products that they are making in sweatshops in third world nations. So they are essentially cinching their own noose, and ours.Secondly, there is a moral issue with the sweatshop mentality. It is unfair to pay people overseas disparaging wages, even if that is considered decent money in that country. Its not right to do that to those people. If you strengthen other countries economies, you stengthen the global market. Pay them what they are worth.Having said that, it takes two to tango. You can't place the blame squarely on Western capitalists as the sole beneficiary of blame. These nations 'allow' those companies to exploit their own people, because essentially they are ending up exploiting the companies who are exploiting the workers. The average worker is the one losing in the end, twice. I think just as much focus should be placed on these governments who exploit their own citizens for monetary gain.For instance, China has done a bang up job at allowing Western companies to exploit their citizens in order to exploit us. Its genius, really. And now that they've adopted a free trade market, the money is rolling in. However, since they are fiscal cheapskates, they aren't strenthening the average worker, they are strengthening its governmental infrastructure.The centroid of power has been shifting Western since the time of the rise of the whole Mesopotamian region, like Babylon and Persia. It went from Egypt to Greece, going to Rome, and to Paris and London, then to the US. It still continues to travel westward until the westward expansion finally ends up in the Far East. India and China are on their way to becoming economic powerhouses, which in turn will make them military powerhouses, and we are actually helping them to achieve that goal. If we continue down this path, we might as well just hand them the gun that is going to kill us.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

quote:

---

These nations 'allow' those companies to exploit their own people, because essentially they are ending up exploiting the companies who are exploiting the workers.

---

"These nations" allow nothing -- "nations" do not allow anything. It is the ruling classes of these nations that do the "allowing".Often, these ruling classes don't have a choice in the matter. International aid organizations, notably the IMF, place restrictions on the governments ability to run their own countries. In order to recieve the aid, they must cut taxes and social programs, anything that smacks of state intervention in the economy is forbidden in favor of "free market" principles, which proves to be disasterous.And what other choice do the rulers have? Look at the examples of popular, often democratically elected, leaders that attempt to run the economy for the benefit of the people rather than a few upper elites and foreign corporations. Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatamala, Allende in Chile, the Sandanistas in Nicaragua, Chavez in Venezuela -- every one of these have been declared dictators, a threat to peace, and removed from power with the help of foreign governments (although the last attempt in Venezuela was not successful).If the nations were allowed to run their own countries the way the people felt they should be run, then in most cases the elites who are "allowing" this to happen would not be in power.In fact, China is a case in point. A fairly brutal dictatorship -- in fact, used by fundamentalists as an example of the evils of "official atheism" -- and at least a potential threat to its neighbors. Yet, simply by deciding to do business with the West, it has gone from brutal Communist dictator to friendly trading partner, even though it is the same people in power, treating its citizens in the same way, and posing the same threat it always has to its neighbors.Sure, I agree that the current methods of colonialism relies more on the concept of nominally independent vassals states "voluntarily" doing the bidding of the dominant powers than it does on the old methods of actual foreign occupation; however, that doesn't change the fact that it is the West that dictate the terms of the relationship, and that opposing the West has harsh consequences.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

quote:

---

There are several factors for why this is. For starters, there is a lack of contraceptives in that region because contraceptives cost money. To mitigate the effect of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, perhaps we should be sending over free contraceptives. The second contributing factor is probably a lack of awareness. An increase in awareness would also help to mitigate these effects. Abstinence-before-marriage should also be taught as a virtue, not as something that is only for religious weirdos.

---

The part you are leaving out, and the part that, if left out, will make anything else you do irrelevant, is women's rights.It is in patriarchal cultures where women have few rights and are not educated that bearing children (particularly male children) is the most any girl can aspire to. It's the pinnacle of achievement.In places where men are in control, they simply refuse to use condoms, for example, and it doesn't occur to anyone that a woman can say no to sex without one. Or no to sex at all. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

The IMF doesn't make sanctions like the UN does. And this is all contingent upon an agreement. Pacts aren't forced on nations, they agree to them. So, again, its their government that needs to be looked at in this debacle. I don't know where you are going with this. Can you explain it to me? Nations are run by those in power when it should be run by the People, and for the People. Unfortunately, in many nations, it is those in power who have all the control. Really, I'm just objecting to you placing the blame squarely on successful companies, as if they are the sole proprietors of power. The governments of these nations are allowing the sweatshops, which, really, are actually better than the alternative for many people. I think the American people should be outraged at some of these companies that pander themselves for the almighty mammon, but we should be even more outraged at the nations that prostitute its own constituents. I agree. I mean, on the one hand, we are trying to open to China because it might improve relations and generate economic growth for both nations. On the other hand, if we are going to put our foot down about North Korea, Iran, and Syria, we shouldn't hypocritically turn aside from Chinese issues.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

That seems like a side issue while we are looking at the broader picture. Look no further than to the Middle East. China is actually moving away from this mindset more and more. And for the most part, some Middle Eastern nations are becoming more Westernized in this way, but they have a long way to go. You also have to remember that this has been apart of their culture for so long that these ways die hard-- especially when fanatical Islam is supplanting moderate Islam. Some of the women want it this way. You'd first have to convince them of a better way before you do the patriachically-minded males.

---

"With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-

quote:

---

Look no further than to the Middle East.

---

...and to many Christian regions in Africa, South and Central america, as well.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.