AmericanPapist Comments
The message? Birth control: it's for other people (mostly the poor).
I'd say that their message is, "Birth control: it's for everyone, but we'll start with the poor in distant lands who have neither the means or proximity to punch us in the nose."
Luke 23:27-29 - The Way of the Cross
"A large crowd of people followed Jesus, including many women who mourned and lamented him. Jesus turned to them and said, 'Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for yourselves and for your children, for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, 'Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.''"
This time that Jesus spoke of has obviously arrived.
The problem in the next 50 years won't be too many babies, but too few. The entitlement time bombs that are ticking in countries all over the world are going to be serious messes.
RWS, one small point: I don't regard Social Security as an entitlement for ME. I have been forced to pay into that system for 30 + years, though I have supported every opt-out proposal that has come down the pike, to no avail. At this point, if SS is not around for me, I am going to be very, very ... you-know-what.
I'd wager a bet these folks don't think birth control is just for other people. Instead, I'd guess folks involved in UNFPA have small family sizes themselves.
But it sure sounds like they are imposing their values on someone else, which is one of the few actions that qualify as 'sinful' to a relativist.
Yes, because "right to determine freely and responsibly the number and timing of their children" equals "forced abortion and mandatory sterilization." Whose right to choose number and timing?
Do you honestly think it benefits people in desperately poor countries to have up to 6 and 7 children (and that's ON AVERAGE)?
Have a look at this page of statistics. What do you notice about the top, oh, I don't know, 50 countries?
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=31
Any Evelyn Waugh fans out there?
IOn his hilarious "Scoop" an intrepid reporter is supposed to be covering the "Birth Control Festival" in an impoverished African nation. The government, attempting to preach the good news of bc to its illiterate peasantry, has put up posters with a picture of a couple, two children and a big house. Next to that is a picture of a couple, ten children and a tiny hut.
The people all conclude that living in a large house makes men impotent.
Do you honestly think it benefits people in desperately poor countries to have up to 6 and 7 children (and that's ON AVERAGE)?
That's not up to you, or me. Anyway, what do you purpose we do with the 'excess' children? Handing out condoms isn't the answer. Giving real help is.
The people all conclude that living in a large house makes men impotent.
Bwahaha! This is a perfect illustration of Western proggies incapable of smelling what they shovel.
Glad that day is only one day; let's give our attention to NFP week upcoming and the anniversary of Humane Vitae! Yay!
Anyway, what do you purpose we do with the 'excess' children?
I'm assuming you mean propose.
What are you insinuating, exactly? I'm not proposing we do anything "with" the excess children. What I am doing is pointing out that birth control education in incredibly poor nations is a good idea. It IS part of real help.
Carbon,
I find it hypocritical on a massive scale that well-off people are telling the poor to block out children from their marriages. Isn't that ultimately none of our damn business?
The poor in third world countries want their children. They only fear bringing them into a life of poverty. Some respond to that by sending a sack of condoms instead of a sack of food. "The fewer of you, the better off we'll all be" they seem to be saying. Charity use to mean giving people something, rather than taking even what they have.
"used" not use.
Carbon
Birth control is not only immoral, it is also harmful, especially to the mothers!
Condoms don't work, as is well known. The chemical methods are horrendous to a mother and also abortifacient.
Also, not one method of birth control or sterilization is 100%.
Having children is truly humanizing for the parents as well as everyone around. Children are very helpful for family projects and duties. My sons clean my house every Saturday. They can dig ditches and mow the lawn.
When Tennessee was first settled by the pioneers, every 6 year old boy could shoot a gun because they had to hunt for game for the family.
If you are farming, the more hands,the batter! Your attitude betrays a typical western anti-child attitude.
Ultimately, birth control is harmful and destructive of the marriage. You can't have a happy family life with a broken marriage! How can an economy advance when the people are emotionally ill?
Having children is truly humanizing for the parents as well as everyone around.
No one is denying that. The moot question is whether or not one woman having TEN children in Mali, for instance, is a desirable thing.
If you are farming, the more hands,the batter!
Many of these countries are in the grip of drought and famine. The law of diminishing returns comes into effect pretty brutally. Subsistence farming is a zero sum game, and when you're on the wrong side of the equation, the losing prize is starvation.
Have you ever listened to people who actually WORK for aid agencies in these countries? I have. If you haven't, why not?
CBLF, have the people who actually work for aid agencies ever listened to the people they're "helping"? Or do they just try to convince the poor that fewer children is the answer to all of their problems?
You said:
The moot question is whether or not one woman having TEN children in Mali, for instance, is a desirable thing.
The answer is:
It's not up to you or me or the aid agencies. It's up to the woman in Mali. Neither you nor I nor an aid agency have the right to dictate to the woman how many children she can have.
It's up to the woman in Mali. Neither you nor I nor an aid agency have the right to dictate to the woman how many children she can have.
And who is saying they ARE dictating to them? Please, shelve the histrionics, and show me one, just ONE instance of dictation-style birth control education programs run by outsiders in these countries? Show me where compulsion has actually occured. Not just vague paranoia, propaganda and chatter, give me an actual instance.
Can you do that?
I highly doubt it.
Show me one instance where a woman in Mali went up to the aid workers and said "You know, I just keep having kids, and I can't figure out why. Can you help?"
The aid workers who promote contraceptives and abortion have gone in with a predetermination that having kids is what keeps women in poverty.
Tell me...after all these years of aid programs pushing contraceptives and abortion, how has poverty been affected?
Tell me...after all these years of aid programs pushing contraceptives and abortion, how has poverty been affected?
It isn't a quick fix. You are talking about spans of tens of decades.
Have a look at Bangladesh.
Largely through the adoption of culturally acceptable and non-coercive methods of birth control, this unbelievably densely populated nation has at least had a mitigation of what might have been otherwise.
As is pointed out here http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/
oed...52567F5005D81D7 it is hardly a thriving nation, and decreased fertility rates have not lived up to expectations of an attendant economic effect. But can you honestly fathom what an extra 35+ million right now would be like in Bangladesh?
Go have a look at the population density figures to get an idea of the scope of the situation:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lis...ulation_density
An extra 35,000,000 people in Bangladesh would move them from 11th to 8th place on the list, from 1045 people/km^2 to 1288, barely above Malta. Keep in mind, though, that it wouldn't have been an instant influx of 35,000,000 people, but a gradual increase in population.
Down near the bottom of that list is Namibia, with a population density of 2.5 people/km^2. The percentage of their population that are classified as "poor" is 28%.
While there can be some correlation between population density and poverty, it is not a given.
Can I imagine what it would be like? Not really, because I can't imagine what it's like now. However, I don't think the impact would be as severe as you make it out to be.
It would be interesting to see a study on the actual impact of increasing population vs. decreasing population. More children means spending more money on food and clothes, but it also means more stimulation of the economy. If your grocer (or farmer) can meet an increased demand for food (meaning he can farm more), he'll likely need more help, potentially adding a job, maybe multiple jobs (one at the farm, one at the store, etc.)
So the farmer has more income because he's selling more food, the grocer has more income because he's selling more food, and both (if demand is high enough) could possibly add new jobs to the pool. As personal income increases, other spending becomes possible, helping other businesses and probably creating yet more jobs.
Decreasing the number of people decreases the demand for food, making it harder for farmers to stay in business and survive. When farms fail, food becomes more expensive, and poor people have a harder time feeding their families, regardless of the size of that family.
Commenting by HaloScan
