planning services

[TURaj]

One of the ways that governments in many nations have tried to control population growth in cities is by making available various types of family planning services, ranging from education to contraceptives to abortion services. Do you think the U.S. government should make its monetary aid for overseas family planning services dependent on whether abortion services are included in the range of options being provided in family planning clinics?

I’d hate to think that personal opinions about abortion would either grant or limit aid to Third World countries. If the United States is capable of subsiding the awful situations seen in these countries then we should do so. I believe that the decision made by the U.S. government in aiding these countries should not be based on the family planning services provided. Granted, it is a fact that the personal beliefs of the majority of our government do come into play when making decisions such as these. Although I do not personally believe abortion to be the right choice for population control but it does exist. In response to Jeremy’s argument, abortion can be seen as a form of genocide. In addition, abortions should not be viewed as “saving the family.” By providing more aid for countries and supporting education and contraceptive use by women we could potentially help eradicate the “overpopulation” which may exist.

let me know what you guys think

thanks
raj

[Chet]

This Country's HIV / AIDS policies are controlling population growth in the Third World quite nicely. Why should abortion even come in to play?

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by Chet
This Country's HIV / AIDS policies are controlling population growth in the Third World quite nicely. Why should abortion even come in to play?

Let me play the role of Devil's advocate (a service that I hope he will remember kindly when I finally arrive at his home). Are we doing the wrong thing by working to cure or mitigate disease or other problems in Third World countries? Historically, epidemics, floods, and the like have been a very effective means of population control, and have subsequently often led to great economic and cultural improvements. Just consider the Plague and its role in bringing about the Reniassance in Europe in the 1300's. By prolonging the lives of people in these economically depressed areas, are we actually encouraging these countries to remain in the Third World category? If half or more of Ethiopia's population were to die off, would that not result in a redistribution of wealth, benefitting the survivors and allowing them to have the resources to better themselves and their country?

[Chet]

Cardinal - thats not Devil's advocate. Thats really what I meant, I just didnt take the time to elaborate.

Why prop up unrealistic population levels in unsustainable environments? What US Imperialistic purpose does it serve? None. Well, except for the cheap manufacturing wages for our tee shirts and ball caps. But that can be done by 100,000,000 Bangladeshis as easily as by 1,000,000,000.

[H]

Originally posted by Cardnal
Let me play the role of Devil's advocate...

Apparently the Catholic Church has convinced Chile to pull a series of condom/HIV prevention commercials because it promotes promiscuity.

I heard the commercials on NPR today and they are tame for western standards.

My point being, I guess the Catholic Church likes playing the Devil’s advocate also

[SkeLeton]

H, that isn't ENTIRELY true... the campaign is still on the TV and the government is still continuing it. But half of the TV stations aren't showing it.
I saw the TV spots... and I just can't understand why many people said they were shocking, saying it had explicit sexual content, when they just have to see other commercial ads in the TV or magazines.
The only thing I don't like about it is that they suposed that people already know how to use condoms.... and we've already seen here in the forums that stupidity is quite abundant worldwide.

I support any public policy involving contraceptives, but I do not support abortion, because of ethical issues.
Here we had a program in the '60s supported by the US to control our birth rate, where women were given tons of contraceptives and in some cases after the third birth, women were sterilized. For the amaze of everyone the government in charge of that plan was from a party closely tied to the Catholic Church...

[BKM]

Can this post be linked to the "Contraception for Christmas" post?

Seriously, this is a tough argument to make. Family planning experts claim that the best way to slow population growth is to empower women. Since that contradicts many of the cultural traditions in the world (sorry Muslims and Africans and Catholics, and .... ), that's pretty tough.

Plus, let's be honest. We are ignoring the beam in our own eye. As an average American consumes (and pollutes) what, 1000 times the average Bangladeshi, whose population gorwth is the real threat to the world's environment? Especially since some of the Third World's environmental and economic problems can be tied to conversion of their economies into supplying cheap goods and raw materials for our ever voracious "economic growth."

Edit: My point being, I hate to sound "Anti-family" and "anti-immigrant," but let's start cutting tax incentives for children and cutting immigrattion (usually from people wanting to live at American levels of consumption-the American dream). Let's set an AMERICAN policy of zero population growth. Then we can lecture the Third World.

It will never happen.

As China and other East Asian countries industrialize, this "pillaging" of lands and resources will spread. Sure, a resource-extraction economy creates some short term gains, but the profits always seem to be channeled to a few connected individuals or even criminal syndicates.

As usual with my rants, I offer no "solutions."

[The Irish One]

We need to educate women over and over and over again and after that they will make different choices, and one step further we have to make the situations possible for women to have career/ life opportunities in the third world. I know that in many metropolitan parts of Latin America it is still very much a man's world -that's not going to change for a long time! I won't even mention rural parts -cause we know how that is. While natural and human disasters have done a good job of population control, the long term solution is clearly educating the worlds women from a very young age. Part of that education is helping women understanding their bodies and how to prevent pregnancy.

[H]

Originally posted by SkeLeton
... the campaign is still on the TV and the government is still continuing it. But half of the TV stations aren't showing it.

Thanks for clearing that up SkeL. I also heard the Church is coming out with their own line of ads on Santiago’s Channel 13 (the religious channel), do know (or have you seen) these? If so, what is the plot? If not, brief us when they come out if you don’t mind.

[SkeLeton]

The ads of the Catholic Chuch haven't gone out yet, they'll be out next year apparently.
What I've heard is that they will focus on other prevention methods (like abstention) but (supposedly, though I doubt) they will include condoms as a prevention method.

[Chet]

Originally posted by BKM
As an average American consumes (and pollutes) what, 1000 times the average Bangladeshi, whose population gorwth is the real threat to the world's environment?

Yes, and hose Bangladeshi sanitary systems are much more common and clean up much more effectively thatn the american ones. Oh, and lets not forget their commitment to recycling.

Oh, and the foreign aid they give every year to the fourth world. Lets not forget that.

[BKM]

You're missing my point, Chet. Admittedly, a primitive country with poor public utilities that cannot support its population at even the lowest levels of sustenance should be lowering its birth rate. My point was that OUR population growth is really not sustainable either.

Since there is pressure from private industry and muncipal watern utilities to reduce the requirements of the Clean Water Act (and most environmental legislation), you can see our water and air declining in quality also. Especially if there are 500 million of us. 500 million SUV-driving Americans (sorry SUV drivers ) will be a pretty big burden on the environment, a burden which we are only partly alleviating by off-shoring much of the dirtier economic activities and resource extraction.

[Chet]

Originally posted by BKM
My point was that OUR population growth is really not sustainable either.

I disagree. For centuries americans have been leading in agricultural innovations, reaping greater yields on less land. For all the talk about sprawl, America has millions of acres of resources that are yet untapped, second in the world only to Russia.

edit: And despite all these SUVs you complain about, our air is cleaner than it was 30 years ago.

[BKM]

I disagree. For centuries americans have been leading in agricultural innovations, reaping greater yields on less land.

And, I'll disagree (somewhat) with you. Many recent "innovations" are pretty scary, imo. 10,000 cows crammed into a single metal factory shed with million gallon accidental waste overflows into local irrigation ditches (a recent episode in my county). 50% of the domestic wells in Iowa are contaminated with significant levels of pesticides and fertilizer? And that our entire "progressive" agricultural sector is based on amazing (and unsustainable) inputs of petroleum-based agrichemicals -and the fuel to drive perfectly engineered tomatoes 1000 miles. The jury is out on "genetically engineered" products-I am not a TOTAL luddite, but even so...corn bioengineered so large farms can apply even heavier doses of pesticides and fertilizers sounds questionable from a sustainability standpoint.

. For all the talk about sprawl, America has millions of acres of resources that are yet untapped, second in the world only to Russia.

But it all runs on oil, which we do not have unlimited supplies of. And, "tapping" these resources will require some pretty significant environmental impacts-removal of entire mountainsides to get at coal, decimation of natural national forests (or replacement with genetically identical tree plantations) to get cheap paper. And, again, since much of our national manufacturing base is being off-shored, our source coutnries (China, Indonesia, Thailand, Mexico, etc) have far fewer scuples than we do about leveling landscapes. So, our lifestyle impacts may be indirect and less visible within the boundaries of the United States, but from an environmental standpoint-they are still there from a global perspective.

[Chet]

Originally posted by BKM
Many recent "innovations" are pretty scary, imo. 10,000 cows crammed into a single metal factory shed with million gallon accidental waste overflows into local irrigation ditches (a recent episode in my county). 50% of the domestic wells in Iowa are contaminated with significant levels of pesticides and fertilizer? And that our entire "progressive" agricultural sector is based on amazing (and unsustainable) inputs of petroleum-based agrichemicals -and the fuel to drive perfectly engineered tomatoes 1000 miles.

This is a function of poor market controls and governemnt cow towing to big business, not a funciton of susatinablity. Proper waste treatment can make these operations sustainable, even if its over PETA's dead body (like thats a bad thing).

Originally posted by BKM
But it all runs on oil, which we do not have unlimited supplies of. And, "tapping" these resources will require some pretty significant environmental impacts-removal of entire mountainsides to get at coal, decimation of natural national forests (or replacement with genetically identical tree plantations) to get cheap paper.

The liberals would have you beleiveing that. When I was in grade school in the 1970's we were told this planet only had 40 years of "reachable" fossil fuels remaining. I dont hear anyone sounding alarm bells that the world is going to stop in ten years.

Originally posted by BKM
And, again, since much of our national manufacturing base is being off-shored, our source coutnries (China, Indonesia, Thailand, Mexico, etc) have far fewer scuples than we do about leveling landscapes.

1) You apparently havent been watching Cardinal's statistics about the manufacturing sector.
2) Maybe they are right and we are wrong about the landscape. For gods sake, man, one meteor and its all over anyway.

Originally posted by BKM
So, our lifestyle impacts may be indirect and less visible within the boundaries of the United States, but from an environmental standpoint-they are still there from a global perspective.

*Yawn*

[BKM]

Well, I guess we'll agree to disagree here. 500 million Americans doesn't sound very sustainable to me. You can continue to lecture Bangladeshi peasants on their sins.

[giff57]

Originally posted by BKM
50% of the domestic wells in Iowa are contaminated with significant levels of pesticides and fertilizer?

I would like the reference for that statement, it seems pretty high to me.

[BKM]

No longer have it. I remember it coming from a magazine article.

As with all statistics, it may be suspect, of course. My understanding, though is that contamination is a problem-in California as well (although here its salts accumulating from irrigation of "desert" land to grow surplus cotton and alfalfa).

[West Coast Canadian]

Originally posted by Chet
I America has millions of acres of resources that are yet untapped, second in the world only to Russia.

Just a point of correction - Canada has more resources and more land area that is untapped than the USA (we are the second largest country afterall)

[Chet]

Originally posted by West Coast Canadian
Just a point of correction - Canada has more resources and more land area that is untapped than the USA (we are the second largest country afterall)

Ah yes, thanks. We'll be by to exploit them shortly.