Developing Countries: Birth Control?

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".

quote:

---

But some people can't have children, and it hurts them deeply.

---

Sounds like my brother. He's losing his hair. He's been spending money on all sorts of treatments to keep his hair intact. My mother warns me to not bring the subject up with him because he does take it very seriously. Me, I think he's taking it waaaay to seriously. But, then I have a full head of hair (actually, I'm just losing it much more slowly than he is), so I guess I take it for granted.

---

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

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

Old days? Nowadays? Would you mind clarifying? Neither do I. Citizens of less-developed nations want what we want: to pass on their genes to the next generation. If in developed nations the infant mortality rate is lower, a greater rate of children live to reproduce and pass on their genes, and it costs more to raise their children, they will find it beneficial to have fewer children.If in less-developed nations the infant mortality rate is higher,a lesser number of children live to reproduce themselves, and it costs less to raise a child, they will find it beneficial to have a higher number of children so as to increase the chance of their genes being passed on to the next generation.Edited by Infixion, : Tweaked last sentence.

I'm not suggesting anyone give up his right. I'm suggesting YOU to volunteer to refrain from exercising such right just so 1 more kid out there wouldn't have to sleep in shit. Hey, don't say that to me. Say it to yourself. You're the one that is arguing FOR people to exercise the right to breed as many times as humanly possible without considering the obligations that is involved.I still don't see where I've suggested that we take away people's right to breed. So, either point it out or swallow your pride and admit that you've either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting what I've said.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.

Ignorance, society and physical circumstances can at least partly justify persistent and malicious reproduction in developing countries. What's the excuse for us in the developed world? Yes they can. If the result of that choice is a child suffering for it's entire brief life through entirely avoidable circumstances, those who place more value on life need to do something about it.~10 million children die from malnutrition each year. Creating a new consciousness in this world is perhaps the act that demands the most responsibility. In the civilised world we seem to regard it as a right. People have children for personal gratification, that seems pretty disgusting to me.Adoption is an answer, I can't justify procreating when I can take an existing child and remove it from a tooth and claw existence and provide an education.Those who think it's purely about passing on your genes have either taken darwinism too personally or are simply selfish b*stards.

Yes, debt relief is essential.Do you mean the G8's 100% relief to the 18 poorest nations 3 of which are in Central and South American?

Even if Gasby was referring to people in general, what's disgusting about it? Moderating harmful behaviour is a good idea isn't it? What is wrong with suggesting that people think beyond themselves?

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

Whoa, Jon. I think you are a decent guy, but you may be getting in over your head with this one:

You remind me of some people that play games online. One time, I was playing a strategy game where 3 people are fighting 3 people. The point of the game is teamwork. It's all about teamwork. The other team decided to attack all at once. I put everything I had into the route that they were attacking to try to stop them. I asked my partners for help and they just stood there trying to build up more defenses around their bases. When they finally sent help, they sent all the wrong units.Ok, one thing you have to understand about strategy game is that every fighting unit has a weakness and that there is always another unit that exploits this weakness. For example, if they attack you with tanks, it is suicide to send marines to counter. Instead, bombers are much better at countering tanks. If they attack you with bombers, don't send tanks to counter. Send fighter planes. If they attack you with fighter planes, don't use bombers. Use anti-air missiles or better fighter planes.My partners were sending all the wrong units and in the "heat of the battle" I promptly told them that they were sending the wrong types of units to defend. What do most teenagers do in that situation? They let their pride get in their way. They countered me with "I don't see your units stoping them."Of course my units weren't stopping them. I was outnumbered 3 to 1.Of course it's silly to point out the obvious fact that I can't save the whole damn world. However, I can try to do the best I can and offer what little help I can offer.Imagine that, Jon the king of the bloody obvious. Can't say I agree with your view. But part of being me that's so wonderful is I let you have your own view. If you don't want to adopt, then don't adopt. How so? If you are 21 or older it is perfectly legal for you to drink. If I have a friend who is an alcoholic, should I not try to convince him at all to get help? Should I just respect his right to drink and let him drink himself to death? Gee... let me see here...

quote:

---

Jon writes:
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!

---

Looks pretty clear to me you were saying that I said that some people can't enjoy the right of being biological parents.And then later on...

quote:

---

Jon writes:
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.

---

Well, quote me where I said this or retract what you said.I know you are an emo kid on an emo trip, but I'm not letting you off that easily. If you are willing to admit that you don't care at all about people in other parts of this world, at least have the will to admit a simple misread or misinterpretation of what someone else wrote. Now you are just resorting to improper comparasons. Homosexuals consent. I don't think any of those kids who were born into poverty consented to anything. But to be fair, I've been saying all along that if people want to keep breeding then go right ahead because it is their right. I am, however, advicing them that simply popping out children ain't enough. There are obligations involved. Hundreds? Man have you been misled.How about this. I'll be more direct and tell you that I don't think it is immoral for you to pop out your own kids. I don't think it is immoral for you not to pick up a teenage hitchhiker, especially in winter time. It is entirely up to you to decide what you want to do. For me, I chose to pick up a teenage hitchhiker and drove him 40 miles out of my way back to his home where he could settle some things with his parents after running away for a year. I've also chosen to offer what little help I can give to orphans out there.Christian evangelicals try to convert me all the time. Can't this atheist point out some nice things his fellow men can do to make this world a little nicer for people? Let me tell you something. I'm cheap. I currently don't have a winter coat because I've been too cheap to buy one. I just wear several layers of sweatshirts and thermals I picked up at good will and walmart clearance sections. I'm a programmer and I use a decade old computer. Instead of buying books, I just pick them up at the library (and I'm a heavy reader... almost a book every two or three days). I drive a car that I wrecked and put back together because it works. You can imagine the rest.It's not that I don't have the money. It's that I see no reason why I should spend money on stuff I know I won't miss if I don't buy.But being such a cheap bastard that I am, I don't think I can put a price tag on another person. For me, it's all about the scale. Let see... I spend so-and-so amount of money to adopt a kid. In turn, I lose a large sum of money. But I still have my wife and my house. I still have my dogs. I most definitely still have all the stuff that makes me happy. My bank account will just be a lot lower.But on the other hand, if I don't adopt the potential kid that I would have adopted if I decided to adopt would remain in severe poverty with no hope of bettering himself. He has nothing. He has no rights. He remains infested with 20 different parasites. He remains malnourished to the day he expires. He will never have anything close to human dignity.Gee... that's a tough one...NOT!

---

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

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

It's already happening. One result is a boom in matchmaking businesses willing to help Chinese men find wives from Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, Burma, Laos and Vietnam.The same businesses are thriving by helping Chinese women find husbands from any country but China.I'd say the 'one-child policy' is a classic example of a linear solution imposed on a complex system. You get lots of unintended consequences.Interestingly, Asia's first hot economies--in Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore--developed much faster than mainland China without any population restrictions. It's no secret that all of them are densely populated places.China's one-child policy has a lot to do with lowering the birth rate, but I take with a grain of salt any credit this gets for stimulating China's economy. This is 'after-because' reasoning. The economic jump is tied directly to China's adopting the economic models already operating in neighboring countries.As living conditions improve, birth rate slows. Some excellent points are being made here about the effect of improved education and professional prospects for women. Today Japan and Taiwan are discussing the implications of 'an ageing population.'___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

People in the adoption business do say 'Never adopt children to make a point. Adopt them because you want them.'My frustration with discussions of 'developing countries' and 'third world countries' on this board is that so many of the mental pictures people carry tend toward the cartoonish. We could really benefit from more perspective.Any Peace Corps alumni in the house?___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

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?

If I hear this one more time from someone I think I might puke.Did you actually read your question? Whenever we invade a country?????When have we ever been criticized for actually helping people out (in their view, not ours)? Don't even try to say Iraq because it is still under review (and I, personally, am not sure the cost in lives will be justified by the end, but that remains to be seen).Can you actually give me an incident where we were criticized from within and without and actually did some good for the people in the country we invaded (or surreptitiously affected through US backed coups)?Do you even stop to think that giving economic aid and support to certain countries in need might help avoid bloody conflicts later? That by helping to lift a country out of dire poverty, we might avoid future violence involving American soldiers and millions of other lives?Invading a country after they have gone all to hell (sometimes with our "help" sometimes not) costs more money and lives than helping to avoid it in the first place.But, I guess that's kinda like (not)contributing to education, welfare, health care, social programs in America. We spend so much more money correcting the problems after they happen instead of trying to figure out why they happen and spending the resources to nip them in the bud.To bring this around to the topic, we have the resources to help educate women and men and deliver contraceptives (if only our idiot in chief would recognize that it is necessary and fund family planning agencies) and we have the ability and the resources to affect even a small amount of change to try and make this world safer by reducing the level of poverty and ignorance. By realizing that bombs are not the "beacon of light" that we wish to spread.