Artificial Contraception: Why it is very Charitable & Realistic

[AgnosTheist]

Could you please provide sources as to contraception solving society’s ills?

isnt it obvious?

***Family Planning Policy Helps Reduce Poverty **
Nearly 220 million Chinese have shaken off poverty during the past 20 years, thanks to the country’s family planning policy.

Siri Tellier, representative of the United Nations Population Fund, said in Beijing on Thursday at a conference marking the 13th World Population Day that as the number of destitute people in the world kept growing, the issue of population was having an increasing impact on poverty and development.

As the task of alleviating poverty got tougher, China, the most populous developing country in the world, had done a great job in improving women’s reproductive health and eliminating poverty, she said.

Statistics reveal that China’s destitute population has dropped from 250 million in 1979 to 30 million at present. In rural areas,the proportion of destitute people declined from 30.7 percent to 3 percent in the same period.

Thanks to the family planning policy implemented in the 1970s, the birth of 300 million people has been avoided and relevant costs of 360 billion yuan (about 43.4 billion US dollars) spared. *

china.org.cn/english/China/36792.htm

Amen?

 

[ElizabethAnne]

isnt it obvious?

***Family Planning Policy Helps Reduce Poverty ***

*Nearly 220 million Chinese have shaken off poverty during the past 20 years, thanks to the country’s family planning policy. *

*Siri Tellier, representative of the United Nations Population Fund, said in Beijing on Thursday at a conference marking the 13th World Population Day that as the number of destitute people in the world kept growing, the issue of population was having an increasing impact on poverty and development. *

*As the task of alleviating poverty got tougher, China, the most populous developing country in the world, had done a great job in improving women’s reproductive health and eliminating poverty, she said. *

*Statistics reveal that China’s destitute population has dropped from 250 million in 1979 to 30 million at present. In rural areas,the proportion of destitute people declined from 30.7 percent to 3 percent in the same period. *

Thanks to the family planning policy implemented in the 1970s, the birth of 300 million people has been avoided and relevant costs of 360 billion yuan (about 43.4 billion US dollars) spared.
china.org.cn/english/China/36792.htm

Amen?

No, sorry, it is not obvious. Violent crime in many parts of the world has risen since the birth control pill became widely used. There are still neglected children and people who are poor. How has contraception solved any of those problems?

As to the article you posted, I have never heard of the Xinhua News Agency and cannot speak to their reputation. The article does not say from where the information about China’s population was obtained. It reads “statistics reveal.” Without any source, I cannot verify the information.

 

[AgnosTheist]

No, sorry, it is not obvious. Violent crime in many parts of the world has risen since the birth control pill became widely used. There are still neglected children and people who are poor. How has contraception solved any of those problems?

Use your common sense. Violent crime is rising, because global population is still rising despite the growing efforts on family planning.

and look at where the population is climbing:

usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/pop/popfaq.html#9

*Almost all growth will take place in developing regions, where population is expected to rise from today’s 5.3 billion to 7.8 billion, according to World Population Prospects. *

poverty → crime. like i said, poor people are more inclined to having sex. thats a fact that ignorant people find ‘insulting’.

As to the article you posted, I have never heard of the Xinhua News Agency and cannot speak to their reputation. The article does not say from where the information about China’s population was obtained. It reads “statistics reveal.” Without any source, I cannot verify the information.

Xinhua News Agency works on behalf of the Chinese government. Look at the root website: its china.org.cn.

Will you listen to a medical article?

medicalnewstoday.com/articles/54415.php

“Today, on the UN’s International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, we appeal to everyone to commit themselves to the fight against poverty,” said Thoraya Obaid, Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in her opening address at the 5th International Dialog on Population and Sustainable Development. “Rapid population growth is triggering a spiral of poverty in poor countries. The promotion of family planning is therefore a key challenge in the fight against poverty in these countries.”

Will you listen to the U.N.?

un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/WOM1258.doc.htm

High unemployment and a lack of effective family planning measures had created a “poverty trap” for women

dont turn a blind eye to the glaring facts:

google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-02,GGLG:en&q=%22family+planning%22+poverty

WAKE UP GIRL!

 

[ElizabethAnne]

AgnosTheist,

I am awake, I am not ignorant and I do use my common sense. I have shown only respect for you. I would ask you to do the same for me. Thank you.

As for the Xinhua News Agency, I do not trust a news agency run by a government, especially when they give no source to back up their assertions. A lack of sources is bad research and bad journalism. Also, I am a journalist.

You are certainly right that the world needs to respond better to the poor. I agree with you completely on that point, but I have totally different ideas on how that should be done. Contraception is not a cure-all. It will not eliminate poverty.

Many developed countries in Europe are facing the opposite problem: they will not have enough people to support their aging population. The resources just won’t be there because there won’t be enough young people to supply them. That is what contraception has lead them to. What is your solution there?

 

[AgnosTheist]

You are certainly right that the world needs to respond better to the poor. I agree with you completely on that point, but I have totally different ideas on how that should be done. Contraception is not a cure-all. It will not eliminate poverty.

The U.N. and most countries agree that Family Planning is the best solution. How do you propose to tackle poverty?

Many developed countries in Europe are facing the opposite problem: they will not have enough people to support their aging population. The resources just won’t be there because there won’t be enough young people to supply them. That is what contraception has lead them to. What is your solution there?

Underpopulation is always a lot easier to solve than overpopulation. If it really becomes a problem then europeans would have less use for contraception.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

Underpopulation is always a lot easier to solve than overpopulation. If it really becomes a problem then europeans would have less use for contraception.

It already is beginning to be a problem with some countries giving incentives to women so that they will have children. More women have children for a time, but in the end, they continue to have the same number of children they already planned to have.

Then what? Force them to have more children? Withhold contraceptives from them as you propose handing out contraceptives to women in developing countries?

There is no easy way to solve underpopulation any more than overpopulation. There is no quick fix, and I can provide you with no simple proposal. I just think that it is short-sighted to throw contraceptives at the problem and expect it to clear up.

nytimes.com/2007/09/23/world/europe/23germany.html?ex=1348200000&en=59421fc6fcd8d0ce&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[teme]

Agnos, for a person with "God gave us Reason, NOT Religion. " as a signature, I laugh as I read your posts.

Here are some of the things I have gleaned from your infinite reason:

1. The best solution to poverty is to require the poor to pay for contraceptive measures, rather than food. Perhaps you could explain the “reason” in that thinking?
2. A news agency in a communist state, sponsored by that state, is a reliable source in proving the validity of that government’s action. That’s much the same as saying Himler’s assessment of the Nazi regime as the best thing to happen to the world is correct. Can you cite any independent sources stating China is clearly the best place to live?
3. By allowing the government to prevent people from having children, that’s the most effective means to decrease poverty. Do you honestly believe the best solution to poverty is to sterilize, murder, or suppress those living in it to death? If so, I hope you make enough money to qualify to keep living if the economy turns sour.
4. By reducing the available workforce in areas where the only “industry” is manual farming, making sure families have no, or very few, children, is the answer to growing more crops. Can you explain how a poor farming family with no children can grow enough food to feed themselves, or make money selling the surplus? I’d love to know how spending all day having sex without any children speeds up 2 people’s ability to plant, weed and harvest, in contrast to what 5 people could produce… (and by the way, kids do not eat nearly as much as they can harvest and manage).

Your arguments seemed steeped in both irrationality, and a blind belief that anything recommended by a person or group who believes in a Creator to be inherently flawed. Your irrational belief in atheism seems stronger than many faithful Christians, Jews and Muslims. You’re quite a believer!

 

[AgnosTheist]

1. The best solution to poverty is to require the poor to pay for contraceptive measures, rather than food. Perhaps you could explain the “reason” in that thinking?

FREE CONDOMS!

chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/08/content_346718.htm

Amen?

1. A news agency in a communist state, sponsored by that state, is a reliable source in proving the validity of that government’s action. That’s much the same as saying Himler’s assessment of the Nazi regime as the best thing to happen to the world is correct. Can you cite any independent sources stating China is clearly the best place to live?

Hey I also showed the approval of the U.N. and a medical organization.

1. By allowing the government to prevent people from having children, that’s the most effective means to decrease poverty. Do you honestly believe the best solution to poverty is to sterilize, murder, or suppress those living in it to death? If so, I hope you make enough money to qualify to keep living if the economy turns sour.

you are imagining things.

1. By reducing the available workforce in areas where the only “industry” is manual farming, making sure families have no, or very few, children, is the answer to growing more crops. Can you explain how a poor farming family with no children can grow enough food to feed themselves, or make money selling the surplus? I’d love to know how spending all day having sex without any children speeds up 2 people’s ability to plant, weed and harvest, in contrast to what 5 people could produce… (and by the way, kids do not eat nearly as much as they can harvest and manage).

get real. family planning does not equate to ‘no children’.

Your arguments seemed steeped in both irrationality, and a blind belief that anything recommended by a person or group who believes in a Creator to be inherently flawed. Your irrational belief in atheism seems stronger than many faithful Christians, Jews and Muslims. You’re quite a believer!

think again dude.

 

[AgnosTheist]

It already is beginning to be a problem with some countries giving incentives to women so that they will have children. More women have children for a time, but in the end, they continue to have the same number of children they already planned to have.

its not yet so serious a problem that the masses could feel.

Then what? Force them to have more children? Withhold contraceptives from them as you propose handing out contraceptives to women in developing countries?

people are smarter than that.

There is no easy way to solve underpopulation any more than overpopulation.

its easy to have sex.

There is no quick fix, and I can provide you with no simple proposal. I just think that it is short-sighted to throw contraceptives at the problem and expect it to clear up.

contraception is just part of the solution.

 

[stinkcat_14]

What I don’t understand is how limiting the number of children somehow saves resources? Think about it for a minute. If a couple make $100,000 per year and have 7 kids, they will be spending a lot of that $100k on food and clothes for the kids.

Now suppose they have no kids. Instead of spending the money on food and clothes, they now spend it on plasma tv’s, a fancy SUV that gets 12 mpg, a vacation to the south of france that spews jet fumes along the way. Why is it bad to spend money on food and clothes and not bad to spend it on the other stuff?

 

[ribozyme]

What I don’t understand is how limiting the number of children somehow saves resources? Think about it for a minute. If a couple make $100,000 per year and have 7 kids, they will be spending a lot of that $100k on food and clothes for the kids.

Now suppose they have no kids. Instead of spending the money on food and clothes, they now spend it on plasma tv’s, a fancy SUV that gets 12 mpg, a vacation to the south of france that spews jet fumes along the way. Why is it bad to spend money on food and clothes and not bad to spend it on the other stuff?

Peter Singer has repeated argued that the latter lifestyle is immoral as the money can be used for charity. I do not know what he will say about the former.

However, Singer does not abide by his own ethical philosophy completely although he gives about 25% of his salary away to charity.

 

[AgnosTheist]

What I don’t understand is how limiting the number of children somehow saves resources? Think about it for a minute. If a couple make $100,000 per year and have 7 kids, they will be spending a lot of that $100k on food and clothes for the kids.

how many couples make 100,000 a year? be a bit more realistic, the average U.S. household income is only about half of that. can that income support 7 kids? yeah, if they lived in the slums. thats not charitable. that consumes a lot of resources, and creates a lot of waste.

Now suppose they have no kids.

Now suppose they only have a MAXIMUM of 2 kids, they might be able to afford mortgage and send those kids to college.

Thank God for Family Planning. Amen?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Now suppose they only have a MAXIMUM of 2 kids, they might be able to afford mortgage and send those kids to college.

Thank God for Family Planning. Amen?

I am sure that they can afford the mortgage even if they have seven kids. Now of course, why is it the parents sole responsibility to pay for their students who college experience. My parents had little money, so I went to the local community college and saved a bundle. Twenty years later I am a college professor and doing quite nicely. I have a rich friend who paid $150k to send his kids to a fancy private college. Three years after graduation, they still don’t have a job. Perhaps if he had more kids, they would have had to learn to take responsibility for themselves.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I am sure that they can afford the mortgage even if they have seven kids.

day care alone costs more than $4,000 a year per child. They wont be able to save all those money IF until the first born becomes responsible enough to look after the young ones. no, its the slums for for a family of 9 with only $48,000 annual income.

And thats just the U.S. What about the poverty stricken 3rd world where working couples only make about $2.00 a day? Many kids would have to resort to crime for survival. Or starve to death. Or die from curable illnesses. Thats not charitable at all.

Now of course, why is it the parents sole responsibility to pay for their students who college experience. My parents had little money, so I went to the local community college and saved a bundle. Twenty years later I am a college professor and doing quite nicely.

thats just you. maybe you have a talent for that, but for countless poor families out there, the kids only go as far as high school.

 

[stinkcat_14]

day care alone costs more than $4,000 a year per child. They wont be able to save all those money IF until the first born becomes responsible enough to look after the young ones. no, its the slums for for a family of 9 with only $48,000 annual income.

Perhaps the family with seven kids won’t need daycare. Perhaps it would be cheaper for one parent to stay home and take care of the kids. You are still begging the question, why is it better and more charitable to have two kids and have plenty of computers, ipods, plasma tv’s, and other goodies that are just going to provide toxic waste for the dump? Food and clothing provide less environmental damage.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Perhaps the family with seven kids won’t need daycare. Perhaps it would be cheaper for one parent to stay home and take care of the kids.

Thats not gonna work if you live anywhere in california. check…

cbp.org/pdfs/2007/0710_mem_003.pdf

A family of 4 with 1 working parent requires $4,199 a month. My goodness, how much more if there are 3 more kids! they’ll starve!

Perhaps you can tell me what State has the lowest cost of living?

You are still begging the question, why is it better and more charitable to have two kids and have plenty of computers, ipods, plasma tv’s, and other goodies that are just going to provide toxic waste for the dump? Food and clothing provide less environmental damage.

you are begging the question. your question still assumes a wealthy family. plasma tvs & ipods are unaffordable within the average u.s. annual income of $48,000.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Thats not gonna work if you live anywhere in california. check…

cbp.org/pdfs/2007/0710_mem_003.pdf

A family of 4 with 1 working parent requires $4,199 a month. My goodness, how much more if there are 3 more kids! they’ll starve!

Actually, the median household income for a household of four in California is $6233 per month. Since the household of four in the study you cited spends an average of $730 per month on food, having three more kids will certainly not cause starvation.

 

[stinkcat_14]

you are begging the question. your question still assumes a wealthy family. plasma tvs & ipods are unaffordable within the average u.s. annual income of $48,000.

Actually, not from my experience. I have been in many poor people’s houses and I see large TV’s, cell phones and other electronic gadgets. It may not be a prudent thing to spend on, but it certainly doesn’t stop them.

 

[ErikaA]

Thats not gonna work if you live anywhere in california. check…

[A family of 4 with 1 working parent requires $4,199 a month. My goodness, how much more if there are 3 more kids! they’ll starve!

And that is why I happily left California, moved to Georgia and live on 15 acres in the middle of nowhere.

California bashing aside, I don’t understand the point to this thread. Catholics don’t believe in using artifical contraception. If you don’t like that, don’t become a Catholic. If you’re like me and don’t feel the need to agree with the RCC on everything, then I guess you can still convert. But it’s not like anyone’s mind is gonna change here and so what if it does?
[/quote]

 

[AgnosTheist]

Actually, the median household income for a household of four in California is $6233 per month. Since the household of four in the study you cited spends an average of $730 per month on food, having three more kids will certainly not cause starvation.

where did you get those figures? on page 10 of the article the median was in between 41k to 60k, and a sudden jump to 81k in the santa clara county.