Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!sophie
From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Re: Live Aid
Message-ID: <1459@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 11:53:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.1459
Posted: Tue Jul 23 11:53:27 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Jul-85 13:43:05 EDT
References: <571@rduxb.UUCP> <279@ihdev.UUCP>
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 64

> i think a good percentage (10%? 30%?) [of live aid money -sq] shouldn't
> go for food, it should go for birth control and education about birth
> control.  yes, yes, i realize there are these incredible drought recently etc.,
> but the problem has always been there.  the plain and simple truth is
> there are too many people to feed.  it should be attacked from both
> ends, try to get these people more food and help them grow more of their
> own, AND show them something about birth control.  if a person can't
> feed himself and his wife, how's he gonna' fee his 8 kids too?  having
> a lot of kids when you can't feed them is downright unfair to the kids.
> 
> 	ron vaughn	...!ihnp4!ihdev!rjv

Well, this was hotly debated a while back in net.politics, but I will
reply again at the risk of starting another flood.

My position simply put is: "keep your hands off other people's
bodies!!!" If you feel like being generous and giving people money,
fine, go ahead, but you have no right whatsoever to tell people how
many children they should have and what drugs they should ingest in
order to control that.

People in poor countries have children for very different reasons than
they do here.  In poor countries, children are resources, not
liabilities, because as soon as they are able to, they work.  Children
are also the only security against old age for poor people.  Infant
mortality and infertility rates are very high there because of
undernourishment and poor hygiene.  Because so few infants survive,
people have lots in the hope that a few will make it to adulthood.  If
YOU were starving and your children were your only hope, you would do
the same.

Furthermore, it is very easy for us to say "teach them about birth
control", what birth control?  think for a while.   Any hormonal birth
control method can be extremely dangerous for anybody who is not
properly nourished, as is the case in developping countries.  Women,
who would be the ones receiving the treatments are the most
undernourished of all as they usually starve themselves when there
isn't enough so that the men and children get enough food (yes, another
important factor is that we are dealing with cultures different from
ours).
All other birth control methods except sterilisation require a very
basic amount of hygiene which is not available among people who do not
even have running water to drink.  Otherwise, they too can be
dangerous.  So, sterilisation is left, eh?  well, given that people
need kids, how will you get them to have sterilisations except by
force?   You only have to look at the big fiasco in India to see that
government sterilisation programs don't work and are extremely
unpopular.

Pushing birth control on people who are starving is an insult in more
ways than one.  First, it is an invasion of privacy (yes, some people
have different attitudes towards sex and their bodies than we do, and
even though they might not look like it, they are still humans who
deserve basic respect).  Secondly, to those concerned it looks more
like attempted genocide than genuine help.  Just put yourself in their
shoes for a while to understand this.

Furthermore, there is not really any need to worry about such things.
History has shown that decreases in birth rates always follow increases
in wealth.  As people get richer and healthier, children become
liabilities instead of being productive, so people have less.
-- 
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie