Why no birth control ?

FATBALLZ

Crisp_£_note wrote: »

Sorry if this has offended anyone but vent over.

This is the problem, you can't raise this topic without 'offending' a large number of low intelligence fools who believe the right to expand the population exponentially is more important than anything else.

The hypocrisy of it is that apparently we can't question 3rd world countries breeding at ridiculous levels because 'that is their culture', but the aspect of their culture that involves letting millions of young children suffer and die in agony must be stopped. As far as I'm concerned you either tackle both or neither, tackling only the part you disagree with is just hypocrisy.

sheepselectric

Crisp_£_note wrote: »

Ok call me dumb but I just have to ask as I cant work it out myself....

With all the children and babies suffering from malnutrician and disease etc why dont they just stop having kids and sort their own country out first?

Is it some beleif system or cultural necessity to have children?

Im not commenting on the women who are raped or forced to have children for whatever reason.

I just dont get how they can keep on about how bad it is yet not deal with one of the key issues to educate them and help stop it getting even worse. They beg for zillions of pounds in donations and charity money over the years and years since it was made aware of the suffering yet the situation to me appears to have not changed or what little change is hardly noticable or touched the surface.

The water aid pumps they put in and the vaccines and hospital treatments help yes but they dont deal with the source of the problems to stop the issues or suffering in the first place. They could deal with famine by zeroing the debt and helping them to get better and they could stop having kids who are obciously going to suffer for their short lives ???

Perhaps I am just too naieve?

Sorry if this has offended anyone but vent over.

1. Life expectancy is much lower. In a lot of cases, there is hope that the next generation might be able to improve things. Their countries are not in difficult circumstances because they're too busy bringing up children; there are complex political issues that have caused that hardship.

2. Re: "Why don't they sort their country out?". Poor countries are controlled by corrupt governments. It is not "their" country, it is the country of the people who are in power at that moment in time and the wealthiest residents of it. The poor have no say.

3. Re: "is it a cultural necessity to have children?" - that is a ridiculous statement, because the urge to reproduce is a basic intrinsic quality found in all species. There are articles in rags like the Daily Mail most days about "one woman's struggle with infertility", and they're always white western women. Wanting and having a baby isn't cultural, it's natural.

4. A significant number of women in poor/developing countries are violently raped or simply expected to have children and therefore have sex without realising they have a right to withdraw consent.

5. It's not the poor people who are begging. People from our own country go out with a camera crew and film them to try to bring money in.

6. You talk about dealing with the source of suffering. Committing genocide - which sterilising all poor people would be an act of - to end suffering has to strike you as a very ironic notion? The source of suffering isn't their own reproduction, it's usually a combination of a hostile climate/environment and political issues that have ravaged those countries over a very long period of time and can't be instantly resolved.

I don't begrudge these people some clean water and old clothing because they've dared to reproduce, not when the taxes I pay are paying for children of 12 to buy accessories for their new babies, when they've had the privilege of being born into a country that has educated them otherwise.

I would rather the money went to poor people who had, in most instances, been forced into childbirth in a terrible environment in the hope it might lessen their suffering a little. I don't know why you would have a problem with this, but evidently you don't watch these appeals too closely.

You're saying it's an immoral decision to succumb to the very base instinct to further your own genetic line. That is absurd, it's like judging someone for drawing breath. Perhaps all the poor of the world should commit mass suicide so as to stop taking up resources and inconveniencing you when they're exploited in TV ad campaigns.

Humphrey10

sheepselectric wrote: »

You're saying it's an immoral decision to succumb to the very base instinct to further your own genetic line. That is absurd, it's like judging someone for drawing breath.

It's nothing like that, don't be stupid. No-one needs to have children, but everyone needs to breathe. Yes some people may desperately want children, other people many desperately want to be millionaires or want their next ciggerate or their next drink or their next !!!!, but they don't need these things.
I can't believe how someone can choose to cause a child to die of starvation. That's what these women are doing (IF they have free access to contraception) - they are not animals, they are sentient beings, and they are making a choice - they choose to have a child, knowing the child will suffer and will have a high chance of dying.

sheepselectric

Humphrey10 wrote: »

It's nothing like that, don't be stupid. No-one needs to have children, but everyone needs to breathe. Yes some people may desperately want children, other people many desperately want to be millionaires or want their next ciggerate or their next drink or their next !!!!, but they don't need these things.
I can't believe how someone can choose to cause a child to die of starvation. That's what these women are doing (IF they have free access to contraception) - they are not animals, they are sentient beings, and they are making a choice - they choose to have a child, knowing the child will suffer and will have a high chance of dying.

No, actually, no one needs to breathe any more than they need to breed, it's simply in the best interest of their DNA to keep breathing until they've passed on their genes.

You're being sentimental about children, which is a western thing. Until recently, infant mortality was higher and people didn't make such a fuss about stillbirths, miscarriages etc. because it was a fact of life until western medicine changed that inevitability. These women don't have access to that kind of care so the "miracle" of birth, when you've been raped for the umpteenth time and produce another sick baby in terrible living conditions, is suddenly not all sunshine and kittens.

Yes, people love their children, but dead babies are reality for them, as we see in other animals. Keeping weaklings alive in SCBU is an artificial construct.

There is no need to be emotive about "poor babies" and moralising about women giving birth to them when they really don't have much of a choice most of the time.

I don't think I should have to remind people of the last regime which thought sterilisation was the answer.

You've got a cotton wool wrapped theory of "choice" because you've not had to experience the things that people in true poverty experience. That is OK, but at least acknowledge your deficiencies instead of condemning those that are not as lucky.

Labmanager

Crisp_£_note wrote: »

Thank you this is very true and the way I learn and understand is to ask questions. Sometimes this learning curve involves seeing other peoples perspectives, ideas and views. I respect them all and often get a chance at some point to pass my new knowledge to someone else

In that case it's spelt naive

elfen

There si the fact that even if you are starving and pregnant, your body will take ll/as much as it can to make sure the baby is healthy(ish) when born It was also found in the concentration camps that the near-starving/half-dead women were still able to have babies and it amazed them.

ThumbRemote

Humphrey10 wrote: »

they are sentient beings, and they are making a choice - they choose to have a child, knowing the child will suffer and will have a high chance of dying.

So should people from the UKs poorest areas, eg Middlesbrough, Hull, East London also not have children, as they too will suffer and experience poorer health than the rest of the UK?


Anyone wealthier and with access to better healthcare than yourself could say the same about you.

All you're doibg is drawing an arbitary line between those 'allowed' and 'not allowed' to have children. Someone else could re-draw the line in a different place.

(Areas quoted taken from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487603/Revealed-The-worst-towns-live-Britain.html )

rattters

Interesting reading.......

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/new-birth-control-methods-urged-for-developing-world-women-2284182.html

blossomhill_2

If you want a plant to produce flowers and fruit, you put it under stress, so that it will reproduce.

If you overfeed it, it will mainly produce non-reproductive parts, eg roots and leaves.

This is due to its need to reproduce if it is at risk of dying off, as its role is to continue the line

jaydeeuk1

Don't worry OP, I've long thought the same question too, having children without the ability to support them, especially in the early years and knowing its likely to only perpetuate the current situation doesn't make sense. No one has the right to have children imo, we're not animals who just procreate out of instinct, but we have responsibility to ensure that those we do raise we can look after, and not just rely on others. Wife and I just had our first child a week ago, and we're both in our 30's. We would have loved to have children earlier, but we knew we were not in the financial position to give them all the support they needed until now. If we knew we wouldn't have been able to cope, we wouldn't have had children. Doing so would have been massively selfish and a further drain on this countries resources.

The world is already massively overpopulated, and yes the poorer countries have a shi tty deal, but over the next decade or so when the UK struggles to feed and look after their own, then how are we going to look after another nations growing population?

Disease and famine is natures way of controlling population, whether that applies to humans or animals. If one species grows too much in an area that cannot support it, it naturally falls back to a level where everything becomes balanced in the eco system (unless it was human intervention). We can keep trying to support people in need, and I do believe the nations that can afford it should support those who need help just to survive, but sooner or later nature will get the upper hand unless growth is only encouraged in areas where it can be supported.



Also seems bizarre that the people in poverty who I'm donating money to each month technically have more money than I do...