Developing Countries: Birth Control?

Hey, nem.

quote:

---

The IMF doesn't make sanctions like the UN does.

---

Sure, but it can deny needed loans and aid. Without loans and aid, the nation in question cannot even pay back its previous loans, loans usually taken out by a previous dictator, much of which often went to pay for the dictator's whims. What do you think would happen if the country went into default? No more loans. No more aid of any kind. Probably trade sanctions. Maybe, if the country were obstinate, direct military intervention.

quote:

---

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).

​

I don't know where you are going with this. Can you explain it to me?

---

I'm not going anywhere with this. I was answering a previous comment you made: These were governments that didn't allow companies to exploit their own people. The first three were overthrown in Western backed coups and replaced by repressive dictatorships. In the fourth case, the people used the democratic process to signal their surrender in the face of US backed terrorism and elected a government they did not, in fact, support. In the last case we have seen an attempt at a coup by individuals that recieve funding from foreign NGOs that recieve money from the US government.Countries have tried to not allow their people to be exploited. They, and their people, have been punished when they have attempted to do this.-

quote:

---

Really, I'm just objecting to you placing the blame squarely on successful companies, as if they are the sole proprietors of power.

---

I am no more placing the blame solely on the companies than you are in placing the blame solely on the governments. Like I presume you are doing, I am simply pointing the complexities of the actual situation, and that saying that "countries shouldn't allow their people to be exploited" doesn't really do much to illuminate the actual situation.

---

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

actually, before instituting their one-child policy, china instituted economic reforms and improved rights for women and these could statistically be responsible for the population changes. kerala province in india has surpassed china's population fall with women's improvements alone. also, the one-child policy is not as strict as people think it is. you are not required to only have one child, you are required to pay penalties for increased parity. you get benefits for one child and penalties for three or more, basically.but, the rural areas have never fully cooperated with the program, and, in the urban areas, the economic pressures to only have one child were sufficient to persuade most families without the one-child benefits.

They could do what the evil, tyrannical US did and cancel all the debt from Africa as a gesture of good faith. No, I don't see that happening any time soon for the sole reason that this money between nations is largely fictitious. What I mean is, every nation on earth, (with the sole exception of Monaco-- maybe one or two others) is in debt. Who owes who, and how much, kind of cancels itself out unless you are a nation that deals out a lot of monetary support. I'm sure we owe France, and France owes us, and we owe Israel, and Israel owes us.I do, however, have a theory on one of the main reasons why the US invaded Iraq. It has to do with the value of the US dollar. I'm not going to go into a huge discourse, but I'm surprised no leftist circles have caught wind of it. Ah, thanks for clarifying. Yes, but who knew they would bite the hand that feeds? I'm not. I agreed that these companies need to stop shipping their jobs overseas because they are hurting themselves, and by default, all of us, in the long run. Hence, why I made the sub-title, "It take TWO to tango." It means we shouldn't do business with nations that treat their own people so disparagingly, because what does it say about us that we turn a blind eye to it? If means we become isolationistic in the eyes of them, so be it.See, we have a real catch-22 situation in the US. We are constantly being harangued for "sticking our nose in the affairs of other nations." When we allow them to conduct their governments as they see fit, then we get them whining about how we left them high and dry. Seems that we can't win no matter what we do. So we might as well stand by our laurels and forget whether or not we're P.C. enough.

---

"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-

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

Good job, Jon, for winning the quote mining award of the month. Hey, you're the one arguing FOR people's right to keep popping those babies out and I'm the one that's saying people should also consider the moral obligation for caring for their unborn children enough not to bring them into the world if they're going to starve anyway.Good job for taking my words completely out of context. Actually, yes. The U.S. has the capacity to feed the whole world if we didn't have kind of economic policy today. If you want, I'm sure someone else can explain this better than I can. I don't feel like talking to another person with the its-either-them-or-us mentality. False dilemma. It's simple. Just do your part and refrain from breeding. Save your resources to adopt. Even adopting 1 kid takes 1 more person out of the poverty level. A hundred people adopting a hundred kids take a hundred people out of poverty. Heck, if every christian was to be as moral as they claim to be, the world wouldn't be in such a mess.Sorry, just my rant.Anyway, please refrain from misinterpreting my message. Take it in context. We were talking about people's right to breed. YOU support people having the right to pop out as many children as they want to... apparently because you don't feel any affect it would have on you. I also support people's right but I also want to deliver the message that people should be aware of obligations. And one of those obligations is the obligation to see if you're bringing a child into the world after you've considered what you'll be bringing it into. Should people exercise their rights out of pure selfish reasons (I wanna be a mom/dad...) or should they love their unborn, unconceived child enough not to bring it into a world of sickness, parasites, and malnourishment?

---

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

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

quote:

---

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.

---

There is nothing particularly special about gestating a pregnancy and giving birth. Most of it happens without any active participation from the girl or woman.Almost any woman, regardless of intelligence, wisdom, education, etc., can pop out a baby.It's very interesting that you are inclined to think that something even a brain-dead woman on life-support can do is the "greateast achievement a woman can do."

In a developing nation that suffers from malnutrition and starvation, yes, many children will starve, or succumb to disease, but these are some of the reasons they "pop out" so many children, because they know that to have 5 or 7 or 10 children increases their chances that some of their children will survive: natural selection at work.And the added pressure of having more children (financially for example) in a deveoping nation isn't as steep as it is to have 5 or 7 or 10 children in a developed nation.

Yes and no. In the old days, yes this was the purpose of having so many children. But that doesn't apply nowadays. Even in the worst of the worst developing countries, there are just enough resources and international aid to keep these people alive. It's not enough to keep them from being malnourished and full of parasites, but it's just enough to keep them barely alive. Sorry, but I simply don't see these children as mere statistics. I see them as real human beings who can suffer.In other words, so what if these children aren't putting that much more pressure on their economy? They're people and they should be treated as such, not some factor that is in long lines of economic equations.Perhaps I have a perspective that is hard for others to have due to the time I spent in developing nations watching these people demonstrate just how misled we were about developing nations. Trust me, these people aren't reproducing because they need extra hands to farm or whatever. It's purely for selfish reasons and ignorance... and religion (be fruitful and multiply). One time when I was asked by some locals if I had a family and if not will I have one I told them I didn't have a family and that I wasn't sure if I wanted to have a family. My answer shocked many. It is inconceivable for them to think for a minute that people don't have to keep popping out children. In other words, they've been taught by their cultures and religions to have as many children as they possibly can just cuz.Anyway, my advice would be to forget what you learned in school about developing countries. Just go to one and see for yourself. Trust me, you'll stop seeing them as some distant strangers, numbers on long lists of world problems, or natural selection at work.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.

Jon strikes me as an idealistic college kid who has little life experience with real people. His words are classic text book examples of how Americans view poverty.

---

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

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

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

quote:

---

You act like giving birth is the lowest form of activity around....

---

Actually, she's not acting anything of the sort. She's asking pretty reasonable question. Becoming pregnant and giving birth are things that women's bodies do automatically, with very little conscious control by the women themselves -- about the only thing that women can voluntarily do is to decide to use contraception and/or to terminate the pregnancy once it occurs. Basically, it's like growing hair. It is an automatic physiological process. Some people can grow nice hair, and some people are bald. I guess some people do feel proud that they can grow nice hair, and more power to them, but how much pride should a person really feel about it before it gets silly?

---

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

Jon, how confident is your reading comprehension? Please go back and read my posts before you decide to put words in my mouth again. Would you like to tell me where I say these people can't enjoy the same rights as people in developed nations? So, are you saying that in the mean time you'll continue to see these people as numbers on long lists of world problems? This sounds vaguely familiar somehow.Yes, yes, you have your pride and you must not lose to an argument. How about I make you feel better and say that you win this one?

---

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

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

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