Birth control in less developed nations

[St_Francis]

Where is the original quote from? I’d like to have a look at that thread

In the second post of this thread, on the first page, there is a little blue square with an arrow in it next to Kelt’s name in the innermost quoted text. I would link it here for you but this device is not very good at that.

The thread is about the Kenyan bishops’ concern about the tetanus vaccine program.

 

[JimG]

To be fair, most of the issues mentioned in that quote are directly related to population.

I think that population has become a Western preoccupation. What brings down birth rates in poor nations is economic development. Yet, rather than help with economic development, we simply flood them with contraceptives. Our message is, forget development, just depopulate your nation.

Now the Western nations have been busily depopulating their own nations. Most have total fertility rates that cannot sustain their population, dooming them to economic stagnation. But that doesn’t mean that every other nation has a death wish as well.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I think that population has become a Western preoccupation. What brings down birth rates in poor nations is economic development. Yet, rather than help with economic development, we simply flood them with contraceptives.

It is unfair to make it seem like contraception is the only efforts underway in these places. Various organizations are trying various things like Doctors Without Borders, several groups trying to provide clean water, and varied anti-AIDS efforts.

Our message is, forget development, just depopulate your nation.

But are the ingredients for development there? Aren’t they still being built?

Can we at least agree that having a large number of children limits economic opportunity? Whether through decreased mobility, time requirements of child rearing, or simply the health consequences of multiple pregnancies?

Now the Western nations have been busily depopulating their own nations. Most have total fertility rates that cannot sustain their population, dooming them to economic stagnation. But that doesn’t mean that every other nation has a death wish as well.

But the high fertility rates haven’t helped those countries either.

 

[otjm]

Why are we having this discussion? Mother Theresa could teach NFP to illiterate Hindus and it was every bit as effective, if not more effective, than ABC. It costs less, it encourages responsibility (a word, I realize, that is not in the liberal lexicon); it does not cause an increase in the likelihood of developing cancer (the medical studies are there, in spite of what Planned Parenthood insists); it does not put hormones into the aquifers (there have been studies of the increase of hormones in our streams and rivers, which are not doing positive things to other living creatures - again, the studies are there).

The Pill has been the biggest joke that men have ever succeeded in playing on women, as it removes one of their primary reasons for refusing intercourse.

Any sociologist worth their salt can show a correlation between the introduction of the Pill, the increase in sexual activity outside of marriage; the increase of divorce, the increase in sexually transmitted diseases, the increase in the average age when people are marrying for the first time (why marry when you can shack up; if you break up oh well - you at least saved the cost of the divorce you “would have had” if you had married); the increase in abortions; the increase in births to single mothers - and the list goes merrily on.

But of course, our government, along with the governments of Europe and the United Nations, and a whole lot of NGOs are progressive. And of course the governments and NGOs, being progressives, and being the educated and the elite, know more than those unwashed illiterate (supply your own terms here).

Margaret Sanger is spinning in her grave with absolute delight every time the governments and the NGOs go to those third world nations and preach, push, and insist on ABC. Racism has just become far more subtle and can be passed off so easily in the name of “eradicating poverty”.

 

[St_Francis]

It is unfair to make it seem like contraception is the only efforts underway in these places. Various organizations are trying various things like Doctors Without Borders, several groups trying to provide clean water, and varied anti-AIDS efforts.

But are the ingredients for development there? Aren’t they still being built?

Can we at least agree that having a large number of children limits economic opportunity?

No. Here in the US we are continually being told that allowing more immigrants in will help our economy.

Additionally, if our society hadn’t fallen for the idea that having fewer children is somehow the more “responsible” thing to do, then we wouldn’t have so much trouble caring for our elderly, a problem which we import people to solve.

In fact, I would say that sorting our how many children a *family *should have is up to the parents of the family, not some governments on other continents. I am quote sure Africans know where babies come from and what their own economic interests are. Why should we shove our ideas of what they should do on them?

Whether through decreased mobility, time requirements of child rearing, or simply the health consequences of multiple pregnancies?

And who came up with the idea that women should be out there working? Are there no men in Africa?

But the high fertility rates haven’t helped those countries either.

Look at what is happening in Japan–low fertility rates have not helped them.

 

[St_Francis]

What method of abc is it that the church tolerates?

We do not advocate a prohibition on abc as it seems that it would be too disruptive to social order to do so.

Surely with Aids in Africa it is tolerated?

Condoms? No, the Church does not recommend condoms as a solution to the spread of AIDS, suggesting abstinence instead.

Yes, menstruation has been considered ‘unclean’ by many cultures.

My point is what exactly is meant by whatever word used in the other language for what we translate as unclean? And what are the ramifications?

For example, lepers were thrown out of the community and avoided, required to wear bells to warn people of their approach.

While we say, oh, women were told to go stay in a special hut, maybe this wasn’t such a bad thing! Personally, I wouldn’t mind having that week off each month!

However, the church’s attitudes to sex were always uneasy at best and in my opinion, downright controlling and cruel at worst. Of course, people didn’t really understand the basics of how fertility works.

I think they got the basics…

Eve, by the prevailing early church fathers was blamed for everything basically! And then it was all downhill for so many women! If men felt guilty for having sexual thoughts they did or didn’t want, the woman got the blame for tempting them! I believe they were considered ‘the gateway to hell’ by some church father or other.
Motherhood was seen as good and desirable - BUT enjoyment of sex seems to have been a dodgy subject…they believed women needed an orgasm to conceive - like a man. I think it was all bound up with Eve being the temptress. Some saw her as the cause of all evil - punished by God by having painful childbirth.

Half of what you are saying is true–for example, in Genesis is described Eve’s punishment for having eaten of the forbidden fruit was indeed pain during childbirth. You look at that and say, Oh, horrors!!! Why? First, men, too, were punished; second, it was Eve’s decision to eat the fruit. Are we to say that women are so incapable of thought that they need to be let off the hook for doing the wrong thing?

Anyway, new mothers had to go and be purified after giving birth. My friend in her 70s remembers women being ‘churched’ ( high Anglican).

Again, what precisely did this imply? What was the reason for instituting the practice? Was it really all a horrific chauvinistic and patriarchal plot to keep women down, or were these practices acknowledgements of women’s nature?

…Many thanks for the good wishes. It’s a great shame that he cannot travel to the near east, but at least there is evidence re the Crusades here, even if it isn’t so spectacular! What a tragedy it all is in Syria etc.

You’re welcome. And a terrible situation in Syria, I agree.

 

[St_Francis]

Well that’s a Catholic website…what would I expect to hear?

So, what are you saying here? Do I get to discount your views, some of which seem so similar to what I read on abc– and abortion-advocating sites because, after all, what would I expect to hear?

Instead, I am willing to consider what you are saying and respond to it with an explanation of why we think as we do. You, however, seem to be unwilling to listen to people *from Africa *about what their real needs are.

Africa lurches from one crisis to another…first world countries spend millions and millions on trying to alleviate their sufferings.

And do you talk this way about people on the dole? Becaause the UK spends 38 times the amount of money they spend on foreign aid to the entire world on caring for the citizens of the UK: about £10B on total foreign aid, 1.4% of government spending compared to 1/3 of a Trillion pounds (£338B) on “personal social security”, “health”, and “social protection”, within the UK. Are these people “lurching from crisis to ccrisis”? Could it be that quite a lot of the crises in Africa are caused by outside influences?

One cheap thing they can do for themselves even if if they have to put up with corrupt governments/poverty/war/drought and famine, or maybe especially because of those things… is regulate their population.

Yes, if they had fewer people, think of the money we could save on foreign aid!

 

[St_Francis]

…But of course, our government, along with the governments of Europe and the United Nations, and a whole lot of NGOs are progressive. And of course the governments and NGOs, being progressives, and being the educated and the elite, know more than those unwashed illiterate (supply your own terms here).

Margaret Sanger is spinning in her grave with absolute delight every time the governments and the NGOs go to those third world nations and preach, push, and insist on ABC. Racism has just become far more subtle and can be passed off so easily in the name of “eradicating poverty”.

Here in the US, we are hearing precisely what the governing people think of us: stupid, so they have to lie to us to help us.

So, do we think that people in Africa are stupid, that we must lie to them in order to help them?

Actually, I really have to wonder about the general thrust of all this activity. Why are Bill and Melinda Gates so involved in “family” “planning”? Having found out this week that one important goal of the US federal government was to force people to buy health insurance even if their employers wouldn’t buy it for them was that they wanted to avoid the simple incentive of allowing monies spent for health insurance to be tax-free as it is for employer-provided health care, I now feel very suspicious of all this do-gooding.

So, *cui bono *if women are targeted for economic development? Who benefits if more poor third-world women are available to work and not off taking care of their children? Could it possibly be computer-manufacturing companies? Feminist T-shirt manufacturers? Other people in search of really cheap labor as other nations begin to get wise to what we are up to with all our out-sourcing?

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

No. Here in the US we are continually being told that allowing more immigrants in will help our economy.

But were these hypothetical US born children going to grow up to do these jobs? I just some see it happening.

Additionally, if our society hadn’t fallen for the idea that having fewer children is somehow the more “responsible” thing to do, then we wouldn’t have so much trouble caring for our elderly, a problem which we import people to solve.

I suppose that solves that problem, but are you implying that we can put should continue to increase in number indefinitely?

In fact, I would say that sorting our how many children a *family *should have is up to the parents of the family, not some governments on other continents. I am quote sure Africans know where babies come from and what their own economic interests are. Why should we shove our ideas of what they should do on them?

No one should force them to limit their population, period. But I’m convinced there are pressures that lead to higher fertility.

And who came up with the idea that women should be out there working? Are there no men in Africa?

Women should have some sort of skill they can apply in their marketplace. What if their husband dies or leaves?

Look at what is happening in Japan–low fertility rates have not helped them.

They had a booming economy for quite some time and are still doing well composted to most countries. But there problem is partially caused by population density and high cost of living.

And it doesn’t seem to be abc as much as they don’t want to have sex. m.wsj.com/articles/BL-JRTB-7790
wsj:

It found that approximately 40% of married respondents had not had sex in the past month, a 4% increase from the same survey conducted two years earlier and nearly 10% higher than in 2004. The 330 married respondents cited “vague reluctance after child birth,” “can’t be bothered,” and “fatigue from work” as the top three reasons for not being proactive about having sex

 

[otjm]

Here in the US, we are hearing precisely what the governing people think of us: stupid, so they have to lie to us to help us.

So, do we think that people in Africa are stupid, that we must lie to them in order to help them?

Actually, I really have to wonder about the general thrust of all this activity. Why are Bill and Melinda Gates so involved in “family” “planning”? Having found out this week that one important goal of the US federal government was to force people to buy health insurance even if their employers wouldn’t buy it for them was that they wanted to avoid the simple incentive of allowing monies spent for health insurance to be tax-free as it is for employer-provided health care, I now feel very suspicious of all this do-gooding.

So, *cui bono *if women are targeted for economic development? Who benefits if more poor third-world women are available to work and not off taking care of their children? Could it possibly be computer-manufacturing companies? Feminist T-shirt manufacturers? Other people in search of really cheap labor as other nations begin to get wise to what we are up to with all our out-sourcing?

So, I take it that you were in on the seminar by the college prof who helped engineer Obabacare when - last Friday? That the Government flat lied to us? That voters are stupid? And etc.?

 

[St_Francis]

So, I take it that you were in on the seminar by the college prof who helped engineer Obabacare when - last Friday? That the Government flat lied to us? That voters are stupid? And etc.?

I did hear a bit about it

 

[St_Francis]

But were these hypothetical US born children going to grow up to do these jobs? I just some see it happening.

Who did these jobs before? Our own fathers and grandfathers! But now that we have immigrants to do them for us, cheaper!, we can keep our hands clean and push our children into educationally-inflated paper-pushing jobs.

I’m sorry, I don’t see this as a good thing and I esp don’t see it as a good thing for the huge number of people in this country who are more suited to jobs where you move around and figure things things out and not sit at desks all day.

I suppose that solves that problem, but are you implying that we can put should continue to increase in number indefinitely?

Well, one if the good things about Catholicism is that there is an honored place for those who have vocations other than the married life. Moreover, people who dedicated themselves to the religious life also provided a social safety net, before the newly “Protestantized” rulers of Europe stole all their resources.

No one should force them to limit their population, period. But I’m convinced there are pressures that lead to higher fertility.

And what are these pressures you are convinced exist and on what evidence does your conviction rest?

And who came up with the idea that women should be out there working? Are there no men in Africa?

Women should have some sort of skill they can apply in their marketplace. What if their husband dies or leaves?

The West is focusing on women’s economic development. What are they doing for the men? Now, consider a husband and father who is truly needed by his family, which depends on him. Is he more or less likely to leave? Now think about a man who is a sort of adjunct to his economic powerhouse wife–is he more likely to stay or to leave?

Which situation do you think is better for children, one in which it is more likely the father will stick around, or one in which the dad is made redundant and pointless? Think about it…

They had a booming economy for quite some time and are still doing well composted to most countries. But there problem is partially caused by population density and high cost of living.

Their current problems are caused by the fact the population is aging and therefore not spending as much money. Their singleton children are unable to afford high-priced nursing care–for which they have no people anyway.

And it doesn’t seem to be abc as much as they don’t want to have sex. m.wsj.com/articles/BL-JRTB-7790

Whatever the reason for the decline in birth rates, the result is the same. And I would postulate that the lack of interest is sex is a recent phenomena, which the decline in birth rates long preceded.

 

[Kelt]

Why are we having this discussion? Mother Theresa could teach NFP to illiterate Hindus and it was every bit as effective, if not more effective, than ABC. It costs less, it encourages responsibility (a word, I realize, that is not in the liberal lexicon); it does not cause an increase in the likelihood of developing cancer (the medical studies are there, in spite of what Planned Parenthood insists); it does not put hormones into the aquifers (there have been studies of the increase of hormones in our streams and rivers, which are not doing positive things to other living creatures - again, the studies are there).

The Pill has been the biggest joke that men have ever succeeded in playing on women, as it removes one of their primary reasons for refusing intercourse.

Any sociologist worth their salt can show a correlation between the introduction of the Pill, the increase in sexual activity outside of marriage; the increase of divorce, the increase in sexually transmitted diseases, the increase in the average age when people are marrying for the first time (why marry when you can shack up; if you break up oh well - you at least saved the cost of the divorce you “would have had” if you had married); the increase in abortions; the increase in births to single mothers - and the list goes merrily on.

But of course, our government, along with the governments of Europe and the United Nations, and a whole lot of NGOs are progressive. And of course the governments and NGOs, being progressives, and being the educated and the elite, know more than those unwashed illiterate (supply your own terms here).

Margaret Sanger is spinning in her grave with absolute delight every time the governments and the NGOs go to those third world nations and preach, push, and insist on ABC. Racism has just become far more subtle and can be passed off so easily in the name of “eradicating poverty”.

Dream on, I say…you’re living in a different reality…especially if you think most women are looking for reasons for refusing intercourse! If they’re being assaulted, their fear of pregnancy hasn’t been known to be an effective deterrent in the past.

 

[weller2]

Now the Western nations have been busily depopulating their own nations. Most have total fertility rates that cannot sustain their population, dooming them to economic stagnation. But that doesn’t mean that every other nation has a death wish as well.

I will gladly take controlled depopulation and stagnation over uncontrolled depopulation which will happen when the growth model hits the wall ca. 2050.

 

[Kelt]

Condoms? No, the Church does not recommend condoms as a solution to the spread of AIDS, suggesting abstinence instead.

While we say, oh, women were told to go stay in a special hut, maybe this wasn’t such a bad thing! Personally, I wouldn’t mind having that week off each month!

.

I’d say again…dream on!! If you can find a way to ‘encourage’ and then achieve abstinence over the African continent ( any continent)… then you would be truly, truly remarkable…you would be a super-human. And as super-humans only live in comic books, you have a snowball’s chance in hell!
Even the threat of AIDS doesn’t have that effect - people will be prepared to believe any old tricks…have a shower, cure it by having sex with a virgin…rather than give up sex! Particularly as, like it or not, may of these people have very limited education and still cling to superstitious beliefs. I repeat; you can try to make them faithful, but you are dealing with different cultures to your own, and they will not give up sex because you tell them to! What about couples where one partner is infected? ‘Give up sex!’ you tell them…dream on and on and on…
Meanwhile? If they don’t use condoms more people will be infected, children will be born with aids and the circle goes round again…while the Catholic aid workers are heroically recommending abstinence. By all means don’t stop recommending it…just get real.

I was just flagging up the over-obsession of the church in the details of people’s sex lives. Not content that a couple are married they wanted more control. The ‘unclean’ bit was just a strange belief stemming, for them I guess, from the blaming of ‘Eve’ (in the literal version of the story).
As for spending a time every month in a hut…our society would grind to a halt! Sorry Jonny, teacher’s in her hut today…sorry, no nurses to give you your jabs today, they’re all in the hut…get your own sandwiches, mummy’s in het hut …haha!

 

[Kelt]

Who did these jobs before? Our own fathers and grandfathers! But now that we have immigrants to do them for us, cheaper!, we can keep our hands clean and push our children into educationally-inflated paper-pushing jobs.

I’m sorry, I don’t see this as a good thing and I esp don’t see it as a good thing for the huge number of people in this country who are more suited to jobs where you move around and figure things things out and not sit at desks all day.

Their current problems are caused by the fact the population is aging and therefore not spending as much money. Their singleton children are unable to afford high-priced nursing care–for which they have no people anyway.

Whatever the reason for the decline in birth rates, the result is the same. And I would postulate that the lack of interest is sex is a recent phenomena, which the decline in birth rates long preceded.

Where are the immigrants coming from and why? Could it be that they come from over-populated countries where they cannot get jobs or better themselves? You are never going to stop people trying to move for a better life. Think of it from their side. It’s a problem - in the UK sudden growth in immigration is causing social problems - some real, some imagined.
We have a large bubble of an ageing population…your solution seems to be have more children to look after them. (It’s interesting that our homes for elderly are staffed largely by immigrants). So then, are we to have more children so that one or two of them are predestined for the purpose of ‘elderly parent sitting’? I can’t see that going down as well as it did in the 19th century. Then we’ll presumably need even more children in the next generation to look after THAT generation, and so on.
However, people are living longer because of better medical care, sadly not always with quality of life and with high medical dependence - you could say that provides employment and is good for the economy I suppose…but then you wouldn’t need lots of children to look after you!
But basically the current economic model is bust. You cannot go on growing and consuming more of the earth’s resources for more and more people for ever and ever.
By the way, WHERE is this ‘lack of interest in sex’???!

 

[Kelt]

To be fair, most of the issues mentioned in that quote are directly related to population.

Indeed, why are they thirsty, hungry etc etc?

 

[Kelt]

I think they got the basics…

Half of what you are saying is true–for example, in Genesis is described Eve’s punishment for having eaten of the forbidden fruit was indeed pain during childbirth. You look at that and say, Oh, horrors!!! Why? First, men, too, were punished; second, it was Eve’s decision to eat the fruit. Are we to say that women are so incapable of thought that they need to be let off the hook for doing the wrong thing?

Again, what precisely did this imply? What was the reason for instituting the practice? Was it really all a horrific chauvinistic and patriarchal plot to keep women down, or were these practices acknowledgements of women’s nature?

You’re welcome. And a terrible situation in Syria, I agree.

They thought that women had to achieve orgasm in order to conceive…and pleasure in sex was seen as decidedly ‘iffy’…especially for women. It also meant that women who conceived through rape were blamed for it.

…let off the hook for doing the wrong thing? …what wrong things are they doing? …practices acknowledgments of women’s nature? I’m not sure I follow what you mean.

 

[kozlosap]

Having visited Africa, I think that ABC should be available for those who wish to use it. In addition, comparing the USA, Canada and Europe to the majority of countries in Africa is ludicrous because off the vast difference in literacy rates. Yes, education plays a huge role in regulating pregnancy. I, for one, would not want to bring ten kids into this world if there were only enough food and safe water resources to feed two. Watching ones children die over and over because of starvation is not exactly the way life should be.

 

[Kelt]

So, what are you saying here? Do I get to discount your views, some of which seem so similar to what I read on abc– and abortion-advocating sites because, after all, what would I expect to hear?

Instead, I am willing to consider what you are saying and respond to it with an explanation of why we think as we do. You, however, seem to be unwilling to listen to people *from Africa *about what their real needs are.

And do you talk this way about people on the dole? Becaause the UK spends 38 times the amount of money they spend on foreign aid to the entire world on caring for the citizens of the UK: about £10B on total foreign aid, 1.4% of government spending compared to 1/3 of a Trillion pounds (£338B) on “personal social security”, “health”, and “social protection”, within the UK. Are these people “lurching from crisis to ccrisis”? Could it be that quite a lot of the crises in Africa are caused by outside influences?

Yes, if they had fewer people, think of the money we could save on foreign aid!

I’m sorry, it sounded like a rude and abrupt dismissal…but obviously, a Catholic website is only going to find a Catholic nurse with a Catholic viewpoint. They are not going to be as generous as you are, in even considering a different viewpoint.
You seem to be lumping our unemployment benefits and healthcare system together? Not sure what the ‘social protection’ is? Brits don’t understand the panic and horror engendered in some Americans by a public health system. Ours has problems with a high influx of immigration and increase in possible expensive treatments, but that will have to be worked through somehow. It shouldn’t be impossible to fix one way or another. No-one wants to lose it. A measure of the humanity of a society is how it treats it’s poor. And anyway, the health of a nation seems to be a fine thing to spend our money on! (When we work we do pay our contributions into the healthcare system.) Of course some people will try to take advantage, but we don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath-water when we tackle the problem.
Yes, some of Africa’s problems come from outside. Some people blame past colonisation by European countries…but I can tell you, they ain’t seen nothin’ yet when it comes to modern day colonisation and ‘land grab’ that is going on in Africa today! China is going to make ‘us’ look like cuddly kitty cats.
The population is largely poor, cannot afford education and is in no position to withstand the pressures, threats and bribes coming with the land and resource-hungry colonisers of the modern world.
Our resource hungry lifestyles need their ‘stuff’ and when we buy our cheap goods - in order to make our economies grow - we will be inadvertently playing a part in all this.
While the Africans - and world aid - try to feed, house and educate their people and try to get rid of corruption, how much more possible it will be if the poor families are not trying to support 10/12/16 children! What is wrong with letting them have the opportunity to restrict their family size so they can at least have a better chance of getting out of poverty?
Other crises are climate related - then it’s down to sheer survival.