Reproductive Oppression

[KarenNC]

As I said, three white faces, though admittedly the man looks a bit tanned. As if pakistan and saudi arabia are in the forefront of the struggle for women’s equality.

So they aren’t “black enough” to not be racist??? They come from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia so they must be oppressors???

The Pope is a white German, so we should draw what conclusion from that?

You really cannot see that your statements are just as much racist and a result of profiling based on nationality as any you deride???

OK congratulations you’ve twisted the thing around on itself so many times I now can’t follow what you’re talking about. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I am rather surprised that you feel the need to disagree that rape is much more of an example of actual oppression than that someone’s family lifestyle choice does not meet with wholehearted endorsement among one’s social circle.

 

[KarenNC]

Is this also “reproductive oppression”?

lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06033002.html

 

[Petergee]

So they aren’t “black enough” to not be racist??? They come from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia so they must be oppressors???

The Pope is a white German, so we should draw what conclusion from that?

You really cannot see that your statements are just as much racist and a result of profiling based on nationality as any you deride???

No, I was merely refuting your inherently racist assertion that someone who was born in Pakistan, the Phillippines or Saudi Arabia cannot possibly be a rich, white, racist or oppressive of women.

I am rather surprised that you feel the need to disagree that rape is much more of an example of actual oppression than that someone’s family lifestyle choice does not meet with wholehearted endorsement among one’s social circle.

I am extremely surprised since I stated exactly that point earlier and you argued against it.

 

[Petergee]

Is this also “reproductive oppression”?

lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06033002.html

No. I guess you’re claiming this is giving a “carrot” to encourage couples to have children. You ignore the fact that western societies impose enormous financial and other burdens on any couple having children. All these “incentives” combined would not pay back a fraction of one percent of this. France is not giving couples who have children a carrot, it is merely beating them with a stick which is very slightly less hard than the sticks other countries beat them with.

And normally one question mark is enough to indicate a question.

 

[KarenNC]

No, I was merely refuting your inherently racist assertion that someone who was born in Pakistan, the Phillippines or Saudi Arabia cannot possibly be a rich, white, racist or oppressive of women.

Can’t recall that I ever made that statement. I believe you were the one who introduced the particular assumption that they must be so.

Racism and oppression are acts, not inherent characteristics. A person who is rich, middle class or poor (by whatever standards one chooses to use) is not automatically guilty of either. A person who is white, black, yellow, red, or green with purple polka dots is not automatically guilty of either.

I am extremely surprised since I stated exactly that point earlier and you argued against it.

Really? At what point? Care to quote, so I can correct your misunderstanding?

 

[KarenNC]

No. I guess you’re claiming this is giving a “carrot” to encourage couples to have children.

They are patently using financial incentives to encourage couples to have more than two children—that is not in question. The question I am asking is whether a government using economic power to control population growth counts in the opinion of the folks here as “reproductive oppression” when it is used to inflate population growth as well as when it is used to discourage it.

You ignore the fact that western societies impose enormous financial and other burdens on any couple having children. All these “incentives” combined would not pay back a fraction of one percent of this. France is not giving couples who have children a carrot, it is merely beating them with a stick which is very slightly less hard than the sticks other countries beat them with.

Let’s have a list of the “enormous financial and other burdens” that Western societies impose on any couple having children.

And normally one question mark is enough to indicate a question.

But not to indicate incredulity.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I know that this is a hot-button issue, but the lack of charity in some of the posts on this thread is disturbing.

Karen, how exactly do you determine “encouraging” couples to have more kids by offering financial incentives to be the same as “coercing” couples not to have more kids by forcing ABC, abortions, and sterilization, whether by direct government action or by presenting an intolerable choice (i.e. no health care)?

It seems to me that the first case is a win-win-win situation: the state benefits from a population increase, the family benefits from the blessing of more children, and the children benefit from the gift of existence. At the same time, couples who are too financially strapped or burdened with health issues, etc., are perfectly free not to avail themselves of such incentives.

Also, with regards to the discussion above on NFP: someone said (and you quoted them) that NFP allows a couple to “decrease or increase” the likelihood of conception, but you didn’t address the increase idea. Many couples use NFP precisely for that purpose. It’s not a method whose purpose is solely to prevent conception; thus, by definition, it is not contraception.

Peace,
Dante

 

[gardenswithkids]

I agree that any cases of forced sterilization, forced abortion or covert administration of contraceptives qualifies as oppressive and should be denounced.

Good, we agree on some things. I suspect we can agree on more.

Here’s article written by Stephen Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute: www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07111307.html

That article points out some who spread “family planning” programs occasionally use unsterilized IUD or other IUDs that are dangerous to women, purchase surplus un-marketable high-estrogen birth control pills that the FDA declared unsafe, and many turn a “blind eye” to complications and side effects of contraception and sterilization.

Most contraceptives are tested on healthy women in the developed world, not malnourished anemic women with other health complications. Bangladeshi women who received Norplant suffered more serious side effects included, “continuous bleeding far heavier than a normal menses” and “weakness in the limbs”. A doctor trained as an OB-gyn who is the former Secretary of the Kenyan Medical Association is quoted as saying, "High blood pressure was never really a major African disease, but now we have blood clots, liver problems, and problems with bleeding. In Africa where tropical disease already cause women to be weak with poor blood levels, when they start bleeding irregularly or continuously because of these contraceptives, you literally reduce them to cripples.” Some programs do not inform the women of the potential side effects of contraception and sterilization, and there is frequently a lack of follow-up care that can result in death from side effects of some procedures.

While these programs are supposedly for the sake of the women’s health, it seems in practice they push contraception and sterilization regardless of the health consequence to the individual women.

 

[Petergee]

Can’t recall that I ever made that statement. I believe you were the one who introduced the particular assumption that they must be so.

Racism and oppression are acts, not inherent characteristics. A person who is rich, middle class or poor (by whatever standards one chooses to use) is not automatically guilty of either. A person who is white, black, yellow, red, or green with purple polka dots is not automatically guilty of either.

Really? At what point? Care to quote, so I can correct your misunderstanding?

You seem to be trying to turn our whole discussion on its head and swap our respective positions with each other. I’m not going along with this.

 

[Petergee]

They are patently using financial incentives to encourage couples to have more than two children—that is not in question. The question I am asking is whether a government using economic power to control population growth counts in the opinion of the folks here as “reproductive oppression” when it is used to inflate population growth as well as when it is used to discourage it.

It’s not “inflating population growth”. It’s a feeble, too-little and too-late attempt to soften the effects of a disastrous and sustained crash in the birthrate.

Let’s have a list of the “enormous financial and other burdens” that Western societies impose on any couple having children.

You cannot possibly be serious. Come on, I have never before heard anyone, no matter how anti-family, attempt to deny this.

 

[KarenNC]

You cannot possibly be serious. Come on, I have never before heard anyone, no matter how anti-family, attempt to deny this.

I am absolutely serious. You have made a statement, now I am asking you for more details about that statement. I would like to know more precisely what you mean when you say that Western societies impose huge financial and other burdens on families with children, ie I would like specific examples.

 

[KarenNC]

Karen, how exactly do you determine “encouraging” couples to have more kids by offering financial incentives to be the same as “coercing” couples not to have more kids by forcing ABC, abortions, and sterilization, whether by direct government action or by presenting an intolerable choice (i.e. no health care)?

I am not equating the two. Currently, we have had the term “reproductive oppression” applied to a much broader list than you present. It has been applied to lack of endorsement by friends and family, critical statements by one’s mother or grandmother, having a spouse that does not want another baby at the present, allowing the media or public opinion to make one’s choices for one, etc. In the original article cited, the mere mention of making information available about methods of birth control was considered “oppression”. As I have said, I do not equate any of the above with forced sterilization or abortion or a refusal to provide health care.

If encouraging folks through financial incentives and attempts to create societal expectations to have fewer children equates to reproductive oppression when it would not have been their initial choice, then I am asking why it would not also be reproductive oppression to encourage folks through the same means to have more children than would have been their initial choice. Both are attempts to manipulate reproductive behavior to satisfy a goal set by someone other than the couple involved.

It seems to me that the first case is a win-win-win situation: the state benefits from a population increase, the family benefits from the blessing of more children, and the children benefit from the gift of existence. At the same time, couples who are too financially strapped or burdened with health issues, etc., are perfectly free not to avail themselves of such incentives.

And one could say that making safe, effective contraceptive methods and knowledge available to those who desire it in areas with rapidly increasing population and lack of resources, even in offering financial incentives to encourage their use, is also a win-win-win situation.

The state benefits from a more managable rate of population growth. Families benefit from the ability to space their children or stop having children if they so desire, and they are less likely to have children die from malnourishment, starvation or lack of enough resources to otherwise care from them. The children and women benefit from the health benefits of spacing pregnancies webmd.com/news/20060418/pregnancy-spacing-affects-outcome.

For instance, if the goal was to keep the family size at two or fewer children per family, one could offer:

A monthly stipend to families that have two or fewer children, but that stops if the couple has a third child.
The first two children in the family qualify for a free or reduced rate for childcare, admission to public attractions, etc. Other children have to pay full rates.
Tax credit for the first two children only, no tax credit for any additional children.
Families with no more than two children qualify for special passes for public transportation. No break for others.
Subsidies for the first two children only for extracurricular, etc activities. No subsidies for additional children.

I’m sure there are other things that could be done with voluntary financial incentives to control population growth. Families not desiring contraception or choosing to have more than two children are also perfectly free to not avail themselves of these benefits.

Also, with regards to the discussion above on NFP: someone said (and you quoted them) that NFP allows a couple to “decrease or increase” the likelihood of conception, but you didn’t address the increase idea. Many couples use NFP precisely for that purpose. It’s not a method whose purpose is solely to prevent conception; thus, by definition, it is not contraception.

I most certainly did mention the “increase” option. It is when one is using NFP to decrease the likelihood of a pregnancy that it serves the same purpose as any other reversible method of contraceptive.

Merriam Webster defines contraception as follows:
m-w.com/dictionary/contraceptive
con·tra·cep·tion
Date: 1886
: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation
— con·tra·cep·tive -ˈsep-tiv\ adjective or noun

Says nothing about the method being used solely for contraceptive purposes.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…Currently, we have had the term “reproductive oppression” applied to a much broader list than you present. It has been applied to lack of endorsement by friends and family, critical statements by one’s mother or grandmother, having a spouse that does not want another baby at the present, allowing the media or public opinion to make one’s choices for one, etc. .

Remember Karen, you asked for ***my *personal experience. I am an American, living in the USA. The “etc.” also included my personal experience of hospital staff asking me numerous times to sign a consent for sterilization when I was heavily medicated. Since I have read many stories about “family planning” programs in other countries, I agree that my personal experience is virtually nothing compared to what some women experience from “family planning” programs throughout the world. I’m sorry that I ever mentioned my own experience since it seems to take your attention off the plight of other women in the international community.

…As I have said, I do not equate any of the above with forced sterilization or abortion or a refusal to provide health care.

I don’t either. I also gave numerous examples that some so-called “family planning” programs *do *force sterilization and abortion, in addition to unsafe contraceptives and lack of follow up care. Since you asked about people’s personal experiences here is another example of someone’s personal experience: pop.org/main.cfm?EID=702

 

[Petergee]

And one could say that making safe, effective contraceptive methods and knowledge available to those who desire it in areas with rapidly increasing population and lack of resources, even in offering financial incentives to encourage their use, is also a win-win-win situation.

The state benefits from a more managable rate of population growth. Families benefit from the ability to space their children or stop having children if they so desire, and they are less likely to have children die from malnourishment, starvation or lack of enough resources to otherwise care from them. The children and women benefit from the health benefits of spacing pregnancies webmd.com/news/20060418/pregnancy-spacing-affects-outcome.

For instance, if the goal was to keep the family size at two or fewer children per family, one could offer:

A monthly stipend to families that have two or fewer children, but that stops if the couple has a third child.
The first two children in the family qualify for a free or reduced rate for childcare, admission to public attractions, etc. Other children have to pay full rates.
Tax credit for the first two children only, no tax credit for any additional children.
Families with no more than two children qualify for special passes for public transportation. No break for others.
Subsidies for the first two children only for extracurricular, etc activities. No subsidies for additional children.

I’m sure there are other things that could be done with voluntary financial incentives to control population growth. Families not desiring contraception or choosing to have more than two children are also perfectly free to not avail themselves of these benefits.

“One could say” that, if one wanted to hide the fact that one were oppressing people with more than 2 kids, as the the governments and agencies that enforce these oppressive rules do. Surely even you can see that every one of these “voluntary, win-win-win” measures is a financial or other punishment of parents with more than 2 children. You want children to be punished for the “sins” of their parents in not using contraception.

I most certainly did mention the “increase” option. It is when one is using NFP to decrease the likelihood of a pregnancy that it serves the same purpose as any other reversible method of contraceptive.

Merriam Webster defines contraception as follows:
m-w.com/dictionary/contraceptive
con·tra·cep·tion
Date: 1886
: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation
— con·tra·cep·tive -ˈsep-tiv\ adjective or noun

Says nothing about the method being used solely for contraceptive purposes.

So according to your logic, when homosexuals use a condom whilst sodomising each other, the condom is “contraception”.

I notice it was reported recently that as a result of the atheist Chinese government’s “win-win-win” promotion of contraception and abortion, the majority of babies murdered are female, and there is now a massive majority of young men over young women, one result of which is that millions of women are being seduced/kidnapped from foreign countries and trafficked for sexual exploitation by the men who can’t find a wife. And yet the rich and powerful pro-contraception, pro-abortion establishment totally ignores these results of its activities, and keeps spouting its empty rhetorical claim that it is “promoting women’s rights”. Sickening.

 

[KarenNC]

Remember Karen, you asked for ***my ***personal experience. I am an American, living in the USA. The “etc.” also included my personal experience of hospital staff asking me numerous times to sign a consent for sterilization when I was heavily medicated. Since I have read many stories about “family planning” programs in other countries, I agree that my personal experience is virtually nothing compared to what some women experience from “family planning” programs throughout the world. I’m sorry that I ever mentioned my own experience since it seems to take your attention off the plight of other women in the international community.

You are not the only one who is including this broad range.

I don’t either. I also gave numerous examples that some so-called “family planning” programs *do *force sterilization and abortion, in addition to unsafe contraceptives and lack of follow up care. Since you asked about people’s personal experiences here is another example of someone’s personal experience: pop.org/main.cfm?EID=702

The key word here is “some”. Yes, I believe that some may indeed do this and that such are oppressive and should be denounced and ended. For instance, we have already agreed about China’s policies. However, I see folks here tarring every program that has anything to do with family planning and developing countries with the same brush. The existence of some abuses does not mean that every program is engaging in such abuse or that family planning methods including contraception are by nature inherently coercive or oppressive. It does not mean that “America is forcing coercive contraceptive practices on other countries as a criteria to receive economic aid”. Rather I see that the majority of these cases are countries who are imposing these measures on themselves.

It doesn’t mean that there are no women in developing countries who specifically do want access to or information on contraception. If that were the case, there would not be the demand for abortion, including illegal abortion, that we see. Abortion is the result of unwanted pregnancy, regardless of where in the world it occurs, and women have always found ways to deal with unwanted pregnancies (though not always successfully or in ways that leads to the woman’s survival). I would much rather see them have the option of preventing those pregnancies than looking at abortion, infanticide, abandonment, etc. or face having to watch their children die due to starvation or problems that arose from too many pregnancies too close together. Access to a wide range of options won’t cure all the ills, but it can help decrease them.

You and I have the luxury of making a choice about our reproductive lives. What I am saying is that I see nothing inherently wrong in providing that same range of options to every couple, to be used or not in accordance with their own beliefs and values. There is no single approach that is going to cure poverty. If it can be cured, it will take a very multi-pronged approach. I believe that access to a range of reliable options for family planning for those who want it is one of those prongs.

 

[KarenNC]

“One could say” that, if one wanted to hide the fact that one were oppressing people with more than 2 kids, as the the governments and agencies that enforce these oppressive rules do. Surely even you can see that every one of these “voluntary, win-win-win” measures is a financial or other punishment of parents with more than 2 children. You want children to be punished for the “sins” of their parents in not using contraception.

No, they are simply the reverse of the policies put in place by the French to encourage couples to have more children, policies that no one on this thread seems to find problematic, punitive or “oppressive” at all.

If giving financial incentives, tax breaks, and other benefits to people who have more than two children in order to meet a population growth goal is not considered punishment of people who only have two or fewer children (whether through choice or inability), I can see no basis for saying that giving the same kinds of incentives and tax breaks and benefits only to those who have less than three children should be considered “punishment” if used to meet a different population growth goal. After all, everyone in both scenarios has free choice as to whether they want to have more or fewer children. I haven’t seen any evidence that France is forcibly impregnating anyone, for instance. They would not be being fined for having addtional children, simply not reaping the benefits of fitting into the desired demographic.

BTW, have you had a chance to compile even a short list of the “enormous economic and other burdens that Western society places on families with children”? Anyone else, feel free to join in. I am quite curious to read the list.

So according to your logic, when homosexuals use a condom whilst sodomising each other, the condom is “contraception”.

No, when homosexuals use a condom for the purposes of preventing the spread of disease, they are simply using the condom for an additional purpose. Their (or anyone else’s) use of it for that purpose does not mean that it is no longer also able to be used to prevent pregnancy in other couples. If a kid finds his dad’s condoms and fills them up as water balloons, that doesn’t negate either the use of condoms to prevent pregnancy or to prevent transmission of disease for everyone else.

Similarly, the fact that some couples use NFP to increase their chances of getting pregnant does not negate the fact that others are using it to dramatically decrease their chances of getting pregnant–to avoid conception.

I notice it was reported recently that as a result of the atheist Chinese government’s “win-win-win” promotion of contraception and abortion, the majority of babies murdered are female, and there is now a massive majority of young men over young women, one result of which is that millions of women are being seduced/kidnapped from foreign countries and trafficked for sexual exploitation by the men who can’t find a wife. And yet the rich and powerful pro-contraception, pro-abortion establishment totally ignores these results of its activities, and keeps spouting its empty rhetorical claim that it is “promoting women’s rights”. Sickening.

We have already established that any forced use of sterilization or abortion is oppressive, including China’s. The issue of the effect on female babies is much more complicated than simply one of availability of contraception and abortion. It has to do with the value that Chinese society places on men over women, sons over daughters, women’s economic power within that society and many other factors. These are not only an issue within China.

 

[Petergee]

No, they are simply the reverse of the policies put in place by the French to encourage couples to have more children, policies that no one on this thread seems to find problematic, punitive or “oppressive” at all. {/quote]Because nobody is punished or oppressed. I explained that earlier in some detail in case you seriously had trouble understanding it.

After all, everyone in both scenarios has free choice as to whether they want to have more or fewer children.

 

[KarenNC]

you’re actually serious, here’s a few refs I found in a few seconds:
kilden.forskningsradet.no/c35113/artikkel/vis.html?tid=46890&strukt_tid=35113

Women who leave the work force even part time to take care of their children make less money and are less likely to reach high positions than men or women who do not do so. Any person who leaves the workforce for extended periods or goes to part-time work for any reason (illness, desire to travel the world, whatever) is less likely to end up attaining the same position within a company as the person who stayed on the career track, assuming equal qualifications and performance.

Actually, I would say that in this particular arena Western women who desire to have both a career and children are at an advantage over those in developing countries, if the goal is that women and men achieve equal positions of power and monetary compensation. The acceptance and availability of childcare, the availability of means and knowledge to limit their childbearing and time it as they wish to a great extent, the availability of being able to pump and store breast milk safely or substitutes for breastfeeding if the person desires it so that she can return to work more quickly and someone else can feed the baby, etc lessen the need for the female parent to be constantly present and available to the infant. There is less of a stigma attached to simply being female in terms of expectations of what one can achieve, the type of work one can do, one’s societal roles. Women in Western societies are overall more likely to be educated such that they can work in the higher paid occupations, as well.

I don’t see widespread family leave policies, supports for parents to receive government compensation while staying home with their children, etc in developing countries. Even in those countries there are multiple occupations that simply do not lend themselves to having a nursing infant or young child with you at all times.

So, until we have societies in which the men gestate and lactate, or unless we revert to only occupations in which women can readily bring infants and young children with them to work all the time, I really don’t see that this is unique to Western society. Having more children will not change the situation so that less time is required to care for children or that they have a lesser need to be fed, clothed, educated, sheltered and given adequate health care.

abc.net.au/am/stories/s713760.htm

It is news to me that children in non-Western countries do not need to be fed, clothed, housed and cared for. That somehow Western society is to be criticized for a goal of children being educated and receiving adequate health care is also news to me.

businessweek.com/investor/content/nov2007/pi2007119_694057.htm

Interesting. So the major economic burdens that Western societies put on families with children are in the form of child labor laws that prevent the child from being farmed out to increase the earnings of the family, that there is less leisure time to pursue the parents’ interests or make such less convenient, and, again, that any children they produce will need to be fed, clothed, sheltered, provided with adequate health care and educated. The notion that all children somehow have a basic “right” to lavish birthday parties, the most expensive preschools, Disney vacations, summer camps, the latest toys, etc is simply absurd and not relevant to the discussion.

I have to admit you have me there. Western society does indeed put a burden on me not borne by many non-Western societies by not allowing me to send my 7 year old to work long hours in a factory doing dangerous jobs and bring home wages.

Raising a child is indeed expensive anywhere in terms of resources, though one’s choices about the way in which one chooses to do so can greatly inflate the expense. I do not see that Western societies put a disproportionate “burden” on families with children based on these examples. Do you have other examples?

 

[gardenswithkids]

…It does not mean that “America is forcing coercive contraceptive practices on other countries as a criteria to receive economic aid”.

American and international agencies attempt to bring “reproductive health” (aka population control) when they provide aid to impoverished countries. One might even question if the motivation behind providing what appears as humanitarian aid might also be an effort to spread population control. A document called “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of worldwide population growth for U.S. security and overseas interests” (NSSM 200), was published in 1974 and declassified in 1989. Secretary of State at the time, Henry Kissinger signed this very long, (and originally confidential) document, from the US government executive branch.

NSSM 2000 focused on how to spread contraception and population control to foreign countries, most specifically lesser developed countries (abbreviated LDC in the document). It viewed the spread of population control as a national security interest and economic interest for the US. Since the document has been declassified, some have posted it on the internet: lifesite.net/waronfamily/nssm200/nssm200.pdf
population-security.org/28-APP2.html

Here’s a small excerpt from NSSM 200. Please note: this US government document recognizes that having numerous children is an economic asset for the poor. Note, also it views investment in development as needed for population reduction, rather than population reduction being necessary for economic development.

II B. Functional Assistance Programs to Create Conditions for Fertility Decline
Introduction
Discussion

It is clear that the availability of contraceptive services and information, important as that is, is not the only element required to address the population problems of the LDCs. Substantial evidence shows that many families in LDCs (especially the poor) consciously prefer to have numerous children for a variety of economic and social reasons. For example, small children can make economic contributions on family farms, children can be important sources of support for old parents where no alternative form of social security exists, and children may be a source of status for women who have few alternatives in male-dominated societies.

The desire for large families diminishes as income rises. …Thus, investments in development are important in lowering fertility rates. We know that the major socio-economic determinants of fertility are
strongly interrelated. A change in any one of them is likely to produce a change in the others as well. Clearly development per se is a powerful determinant of fertility.

… with a wide range of development programs, and the U.S. strategy should continue to stress the importance of taking population into account in “non-family planning” activities. This is particularly important with the increasing focus in the U.S. development program on food and nutrition, health and population, and education and human resources; assistance programs have less chance of success as long as the numbers to be fed, educated, and employed are increasing rapidly.

Thus, to assist in achieving LDC fertility reduction, not only should family planning be high up on the priority list for U.S. foreign assistance, but high priority in allocation of funds should be given to programs in other sectors that contribute in a cost-effective manner in reduction in population growth….

 

[Petergee]

I do not see that Western societies put a disproportionate “burden” on families with children based on these examples.

I guess all I can say is “None so blind…”