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

While I see what you are saying, I would like to point out that bearing children is a pretty big achievement, and probably one of the greatest ones any woman can do. I mean, when was the last time a man crapped out a kid? I mean, there are a lot of other really important things in anyone's life, but giving birth to a child should really trump them all, no? Of course, this is providing that both parties are willing.J0N

What about them? What about the children? What are they gonna do years from now, when they've overpopulated their own planet, not because they chose to, but because their parents wouldn't stop shitting them out by the handfulls?What are we to do? Some children are born really rich and live in mansions. Some are born dirt-poor and live in trailer houses. Others are born in developing nations starving to feed the people they already have. What can you do? It's evolution: some live, some die. They can't all live, they can't all be well off. In my opinion, if every child in the world were to be supported as well as children in developed countries, the planet would be in serious trouble.Think of the strain that developed countries put on the world and its resources... do you think the world can afford that with every person? It can hardly afford it the way it is! It's rough; it's sad; it's shit; it's no cool... far from it. However, there isn't much choice. Everyone wants kids, and only so many people can have them. This may have to do with nothing but luck, yet, so what? What can you otherwise do?What would you think if the world leaders announced that they were going to raise taxes in their countries in order to bring down the income of people in developed countries so that the money could be spent on people in developing countries. It would bring you down a little, but would bring them up, so you all would be equal? Is that something you're willing to do? Will you give up THAT much of what you own, what you make, what you are in order to balance it out so the whole world can exercise their rights?J0N

Achievement was your word, and I may have misused it. Perhaps "responsibility."You act like giving birth is the lowest form of activity around, yet I think anyone who can bring another life into existance should feel a little proud, eh? Either way, I'm not a woman, so I guess until more come around, you'll be winning this one.J0N

The children are people, but so are their parents who want to enjoy the same rights enjoyed by those individuals in developed countries. Why can't they? It's their rights too! Isn't that a great way to end your argument. You know, not everyone on these forums can fly from one country to the next to enjoy the pleasures of gawking at the poor starving kids as if they were circus clowns. You're going to have to bring the evidence home, to us, and you'll need a lot more than just YOUR word to make it stick.J0N

That's just down-right immoral! Why should someone have to forego their rights to be a parent of their OWN kid just because they are poor? And why should someone in a developing country have to give up one, two, maybe three (or all) of their children to rich assholes from developed countries? You know, there is a lot of adopting out there that is illegitamate: people steeling children, and what have you. Would you adopt someone knowing that there is a possibility they were stolen? What would you finally tell your child one day when they found out that YOU (YOU) are the reason they were stolen from their birth parents? What would you tell the police as they came to stick your ass in prison? The comment quoted up above this statement is yours. So I'm not sure I can tell whether you're debating me, or yourself... . First, it is either them or us. We can't give them more without taking from ourselves. Governments can't just shit out more money you know. They have to raise it, in the form of taxes. And with the high taxes that are raised right now, we already have trouble keeping up with healthcare, education, roads, etc. Are you willing to give up all that? If you are, then go ahead and give away all you have so that you can go live in a cardboard box. That situation is unlikely to develope, yes, but it is true that the only way for a government to raise money for foreign aid is to raise taxes. Look at the huge debt of the United States. Some of that money is from sending foreign aid, foreign aid that we CAN'T afford to send.And, I'd like to point out, that the U.S. people do FAR more to contribute to foreign aid than does the government of the U.S., or the governments of most other countries. And do you notice, that with all our contributions, our economy is falling, people in our OWN country live on the streets, don't have jobs, can't support their OWN families, or afford to go to the hospital or clinic?Don't you get it? We can't be the ones to save the damn world. It seems like whenever the U.S. invades a country, we get insulted for interfering; but then the moment they need a damn check cut for aid, who do they come running to?Fuckin' hypocrits; the whole damn works!Sorry, ranting.J0N

But some people can't have children, and it hurts them deeply. I think those who can take it for granted as an "automatic physiological process".

Yep: I don't know who you are talking about here, but either way you are suggesting that someone give up their right (or not use it) in order to "fix" the problem. Disgusting really. Now, you said that adopting 100 kids will take 100 out of poverty, but if these people are so set on having kids, what's to keep them from just shitting out 100 more to replace the ones that were taken away?J0N

I don't think I said you were suggesting people flat out give up their rights, but you ARE suggesting that they not exercise their rights as part of some "moral obligation." And, trying to convince someone to not use the rights they have is as bad as trying to take them away. I am saying it to you in order to point out the fact that you are never going to win. All you can do is let people have all the damn kids they want and then let them die. You just cannot save the whole damn world. And besides, I want MY kid. Why? Because I think my kid, who has my genes, my intelligence, my good looks , and my overall ability to succede would be a better member of society. It's only natural that people want to pass on THEIR genes and have their OWN family. My mother said the other day that she couldn't understand why someone would want someone else's kid instead of their own. Heck, she even thought it was weird to adopt even if a couple were unable to have children.I won't go that far, but I will say that adoption is the choice of each individual, and some people want their OWN kids. And if they live in a country that can support them, have a job that can support them, have access to education that can teach them, then why can't they have their own kid? It's the right of the parent.And to suggest that it is some sort of moral obligation to adopt a kid disgusts me! It is like trying to convince people not to be homosexuals because you think it is immoral. And, just because you think it is immoral for people to have a kid when hundreds are starving in Africa doesn't mean anyone else thinks the same. Also, it's REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY expensive to adopt one of those dying, lame, diseased, dirty little African babies anyway... and some people might take the cheaper rout, where they end up with a clean, healthy, living, baby filled with all their OWN genetic information. How immoral and selfish of them!J0N

I don't support wars, and think the U.S. is wrong in invading countries. But I think it equally wrong to be a filthy hypocrit. Really, it's the U.S.'s money, and if the people want it, they can either go by our rules, or starve to death. For some reason, people always want it both ways.Not that I'm attempting to justify either approach here, not at all. Just to say that it is the government's money, and they can spend it how they choose. Hell, I'd rather they would spend it on fixing the problems here at home! Oh? Well, I don't think that highly of my country plumetting into financial ruin faster than I think most people realize. And I don't think that such a country has any power to save the world. I think some people think so damn highly of America (particularly Americans) that they just don't realize that we AREN'T really wealthy and powerful enough to solve all the world's problems. Some problems we have to let the world solve for itself.

I will get to responding to your message in more depth after breakfast. But I can tell you one thing, anyone who equates the real world with strategy gaming is an idiot, and should perhaps pull themselves from the basement for at least one or two hours a day in order to see what's really happening.And, if you did go to all these developing nations, I don't see how you could be talking about these problems and how they are like a strategy game. And actually, stocking up is good, because then you have more to give away later. Financial growth, I believe, happens in a more exponential manner than linear.J0N

That's a slightly different situation. My thoughts are that by baby number 87, the parents realize that they can't feed them or themselves. They know that they can't make it very well, but they still keep having children because that's what they want to do. Have you seen how hard it is for me to change your mind, no matter what logic I muster? Or how hard it is for you to sway me based on the logic you are using? How are you going to sway someone from having kids if that's what they've got their heart set on? Your whole message has been that people should stop having kids. You've said that numerous times, in numerous ways. If you ask me to point it out again, I'm just going to tell you to fuck off. I can't belive you are advocating the picking up of hitchhikers. Man, you are a piss-poor role model! After all the things they teach you in school. Neither did the children born in wealthy developing countries consent either. Strange, you think someone WOULD consent to being born into such a lifestyle, unless, perhaps, could it be? Oh, yes, that's right, they are unborn, cannot consent and don't have a damn say in the matter!I don't really care what you do with your money, or with your potentially adopted infestisite, just don't stand there and preach that your way of doing things is the moral and right way. Some people work their ass off for their money and want to buy a nice car, and a nice house, and perhaps a winter coat or two. They can do that, and shouldn't feel any bit morally responsible for other people! You are laying some guilt trip on everyone else out there who doesn't feel the desire to spend their hard earned money on charity.And, to be honest, it sounds like you live a pretty unsatisfying, boring, pathetic life. But that's just my opinion based on some very limited facts.Oh, and I decided to forgo my breakfast this morning so that some hungry African kid could maybe get a meal for himself... NOT!J0N

Fuck off. If this is saying anything other than "you shouldn't breed," I don't see that alternative message. I don't feel guilty at all... if I did, I'd be giving up all my hard-earned money to help the starving babies. But I don't really care that much about what people in other countries want to do with their own lives, so I just say t'hell with them. The risk that you could be lying face-down in a ditch while some punk makes off to Mexico with your car seems to outweigh the cold teen who's only standing there because he was dumb enough to run from home in the first place. What was it, mommy said "no" to tatoo number 58? If it's not about morality, then what is it about? What is it that makes you care about the starving children. What is it that makes you think others should care? What makes you post things like this: From what I can see, it's entirely an issue of morality, on both sides. On my side, it's the morality of parents being able to do what they want without rich assholes sticking their noses into their business telling them not to breed. On your side, it's rich assholes sticking their noses into the business of parents telling them not to breed.J0N

To say that giving birth is taking away from the child's right to live is one of the most nonsensical things I've read here at EvC. Do you know how many nonsensical things get said around here? If you did, you'd realize just what it means to be at the top of the list.Now, I am one of the people out there who wants to live as long as possible. If it means the rest of my days are spent on machines, so be it. If it means the rest of my days are spent diseased and malnourished, so be it. Some people would rather be dead than diseased and malnourished or disfigured. I, on the other hand, think that any bit of life is precious.I am, right now, going to go so far as to applaud the parents who give birth to children despite the odds against their survival. Bravo. There are some children born in the United States who are diseased at birth, or who become diseased and die very young. Should these children not have been brought into the world? Should we think so lowly of the life of those who are ill to say that they would be better off dead/not born? That is a thought that disgusts me.Life, no matter how bad is better than non-life. It's better to give birth to a soul and to give that soul a chance at life, at breathing the air on Earth, seeing the sun rise, hearing the birds call, than to not give that child a chance, to not try with all your might to bring it into existance so that it may have the opportunity to enjoy a small amount of life. I am of the feeling that even a short and horrible amount of life, is better than no life at all, better than never having existed.If the world had it your way, what would happen? No one in developing countries would reproduce; they would have no more children. And, as they died off without successors, only you and your priviledged society would remain. Do you truly believe that life, as precious as it is, is something only reserved for the rich and priviledged?J0N

I couldn't 've been alive all that time, because I wasn't yet born. Now that I am born, I am much more pleased of it, despite my health problems. Anything else in your post was irrelivant to the topic of controlling birth numbers in developing countries.