The antagonism between breeders and non-breeders is a futile waste of energy.    Those, who need breeding for their homeostasis, are not the problem, because they raise wanted children.    The problem of the growing overpopulation of this globe is not caused by a few people, who have the choice and who decide to breed, the problem are those, who have no choice to avoid breeding.   
The real problem are the unwanted children worldwide, everywhere, but especially in poor and backward countries, where women do not have access to the birth control they want, due to either lack of instruction, poverty or restrictive laws.  

People in rich countries, who can afford it, donate huge sums of money to charities helping people in the third world.   Helping children has the most appeal to people's compassion.   But to my knowledge, there is no world wide charity focusing entirely on helping women to have full control over their fertility.  
The most valuable charity action, that I have ever heard of, was the abortion ship, that was stationed for a while off the coast of Portugal, where abortion was not available.  

Some childfree people, who are able to do so, should start a birth control charity.   

Views: 1397

Replies to This Discussion

I disagree... it's the babies of the developed world who impose the largest eco-footprint upon the world's ecosystem. What is the number? something like a 12-fold difference. Us Canadians have an even larger eco-footprint than the USA due to our extreme heating energy demands and huge travel distances between us. Third world babies have little impact on the world compared to us.

There is the political problem of our governments refusing to touch anything regarding family planning in developing nations, in order that we may "import" them to our nations to feed the cheap labour needs of our greedy economies... but that is another matter.

Births are on the rise in developed nations, this is unacceptable. The downward trend stopped last decade.

This is a disagreement without any absolute right of wrong.   It is an entirely personal value discrepancy.  

From the epicurean principle of avoiding harm to individuals, every woman, who is spared the agony of raising unwanted children is important, and her moral right to be spared is independent from where she lives.    If she has no choice to avoid a pregnancy, she lives and suffers now and there is no god in the afterlife to reward her.  And the ecosystem does not any more for her than a god to alliviate her sufferings or reward her.   I cannot accept to discard a god as a justification to make people suffer, if they are supposed to suffer instead to save the ecosystem.  

But from the point of view, that the earth, the ecsosystem, nature etc. is more valuable than individual's life and wellbeing, then of course this leads to a different evaluation.  

How much is done by the UN? I know they have had some family planning things but not sure how much.
Generally, international aid is linked to NON activity in family planning. There are very few organisations who touch on that topic.

This is a link to a table comparing different countries concerning the birth rates defined as "the average annual number of births during a year per 1,000 persons in the population at midyear; also known as crude birth rate. "

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankord...

The highest rate is in Niger with 50.54, in other African countries it is not much lower.   In Germany the rate is 8.30, in the USA 13.83.   By taking some people's instinctive urge to procreate in account, it is certainly much easier to help people avoid having more children than they want themselves instead of preaching those people, who are motivated and able to raise the children, whom they really want.   

 

 

Anytime we look at other countries to solve the problems we created, we are failing to make effective policy. Africa is not the problem. Most of us aren't childfree in a political vacuum, there are political objectives to be achieved by reducing the human population, beginning with ending the growth in first world countries. This will involve regulation immigration and international out-sourcing as well, because many babies made in Niger are used up by us in NW countries' labour markets.
I am merely looking at people's motivation.   It is both, easier and more morally acceptable, to support people to do, what they want themselves rather than to force, manipulate and influence people not to do, what they want.
So you'd rather 'force' third world countries rather than start at home? No really, think of that! :)

We could start by boycotting the companies that sponsor the Duggars' TV show...unless the last episode shows him having a vasectomy, and her having a tubal ligation.

They just announced that she's three and a half months pregnant with #20...they're running out of J-names.  Maybe they ought to name this one "Jesus" ("Hay-soos"), if it's a boy. 

They are disgusting.

I've never even heard of that show... so I'm already boycotting it :)

But it could make for a good atheist campaign...

There is one abortion charity that I know of, but it's based in Madison, Wisconsin...but they do offer financial help to anyone they can, no matter where the woman in need lives.

http://www.philosopedia.org/index.php/Anne_Nicol_Gaylor

After writing the first editorial in the state calling for legalized abortion in 1967, she began receiving calls from desperate women and turned to volunteer activism.

Among her feminist activities, Anne founded the ZPG Abortion Referral Service in 1970 and, over the next 5 years, made more than 20,000 referrals for birth control, abortion, and sterilization. In 1972, she co-founded the Women's Medical Fund charity to help low-income women pay for abortions. She has run that charity as a volunteer for 32 years and helped more than 14,000 women.

Her Abortion is a Blessing was published in 1975. "There were many groups working for women's rights," she realized, "but none of them dealt with the root cause of women's oppression - religion."

***************************

She needs to branch out somehow.  It makes me sick when I think of the millions (billions?) of dollars that naive people have donated to that old fraud Mother Teresa...money that is still sitting in the Vatican's bank accounts...that could have paid for every 3rd world woman to have access to contraceptives. But, of course, the Crap-lick Crutch LOVES starving babies and lots and lots of orphans.

Arrrrgh!

I was mistaken about one thing, most of the women who have been helped by the Women's Medical Fund have been Wisconsin residents.

Other resources, at least for information, are NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

One thing I don't understand about abortion opponents is that they also oppose contraception. That's the most bass-ackward kind of thinking IMO.

If every female had access to The Pill, if she wanted it, there would be fewer abortions.  Fewer unwanted children (I have known people who were told by their mothers that they were "accidents"...and more than one ended up committing suicide). And more women able to educate themselves, work, and appreciate the families they already have. 

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service