Developing Countries: Birth Control?

People in "third world countries" should not have children they cannot support...Yes we are a more privileged society and even though I don't know if god exists I thank my stars and my parents that of all the families' and countries I could have been born into, I got mine!I am VERY privileged to be in a country that can support and provide when you cant, a country where it is illegal to starve to death, a country who provides even the poorest with the best medical treatment we have.Unfortunately, not every one is so lucky. Children in those countries are starving to death, and dying from diseases that they cannot get treatment for and that they can also pass onto other children.Whilst the parents have a right to have children the children should have a right to live and the people giving birth to these children are taking that right away.I believe it is morally wrong to give birth to a child you know is going to starve to death or die from the disease you carry. To knowingly give birth to a child that you know is going to suffer.Jon whilst I appreciate your views, you were the one who was against capital punishment because an innocent person "may" be killed yet every day innocent children are being killed by their parents. Parents having these children knowing they are not going to live because they cannot feed them or medicate them for the diseases they are passing on.Is it their RIGHT to intentionally starve another human being to death? Their RIGHT to intentionally pass on their diseases? Their RIGHT to intentionally kill their child?

[QS] Whilst the parents have a right to have children the children should have a right to live and the people giving birth to these children are taking that right away.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. [QS] When you give birth to a child you KNOW is going to die due to you not being able to provide it with the things it needs to survive then yes you ARE taking that life away, you are giving a life and taking it away... So infact you summed it up perfectly, them giving birth is taking away the childs right to survive.. It doesnt sound nonsensical to me, infact i say you just about summed it up thank you for paraphrasing my argument!attacking people for there opinions looks foolish and immature, it makes your arguments look silly too.P.S One of the most nonsensical thing I read was an argument to a post that had f*ck off as an response, now thats nonsence!!!

Jon i apologise if i appeared to be at you with my fangs, it was certainly not my intention, I do like reading most of your posts as you have a lot of passion which has dwindled out of me over the years... i promise that the fangs are reserved only for phisical defence!!in answer to your comment
(qs)I'll get back to answering all of your questions, when you all tell me why only the people in developed countries should be able to have children and further the existance of their society. And remember, if you adopt them out of that society, and in to your own, it does nothing to further their own society(qs)if a parent in undeveloped countries can supply child with basics it needs to live then i have no quarrel! I see where your coming from about them not reproducing but if only the people who could feed and medicate the child had children, the population would still grow, and maybe at the same rate as there may be less starvations and illness'. Im not sure if it would work like that and im sure i am being idealistic! i know it seems to you unfair on the other people, but children ARE our future and they will not have much future if their children are starving to death and dying from diseases they are passing on!