Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Non-Catholic and third world midwife recommends NFP to villagers.

The rejection of misogyny led this midwife to reject chemical birth control in Indonesia, where the government teaches the motto "dua anak cekup" (two children enough) to schoolchilden and forces women to use IUDs that can't be removed safely and mandates shots of birth control drugs.

19 comments:

Bill S said...

I can see situations where a government must take desperate measures to try to curtail overpopulation. As draconian as these measures might appear to be, the alternative could be much more consequential.

Theodore Seeber said...

I can't- because the main real problem with overpopulation is the greed of the rich measured against the fertility of the poor. The only real consequence of abandoning population control, is that the rich have to share more with the poor.

Modern population control is more about politics and economics than actual overpopulation; it is about using eugenics to increase the wealth of the rich at the expense of everybody else- which has always made me wonder why the Republicans would be against it (though not much, I do understand the political process of pretending to be against something to get the clueless voters to vote for something just as bad or worse- which is why I won't vote for Republicans).

Bill S said...

"The only real consequence of abandoning population control, is that the rich have to share more with the poor."

The rich don't have to share anything with the poor and even if they do, I'm sure they don't stay up nights worrying about it. Population control is to lift the poor out of their misery by reducing the number of mouths they have to feed and giving women time to earn a living instead of caring for so many children.

Theodore Seeber said...

The existence of 200 years worth of documented "worrying about it" from Malthus and Nietzsche on up, kind of says that the rich *do* indeed worry about the "waste of resources" that the "excess population" uses. It was so famous that Charles Dickens devoted several novels to it; entire print runs of magazines came and went, and you yourself have become convinced of the very arguments used to get rid of excess population so clearly documented by your philosophical fathers. Every single argument for "curtailing overpopulation" comes down to "how do we afford to have lives of luxury with all of this excess population using resources?"

You can read an excellent summary white paper of the past 200 years of concern on this issue right here:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2133834?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102055850033

Bill S said...

"Every single argument for "curtailing overpopulation" comes down to "how do we afford to have lives of luxury with all of this excess population using resources?""

I don't think that everyone sees it that way. It is not just so the rich can live lives of luxury. There are real concerns for the planet and people in general. Not just the rich.

Theodore Seeber said...

If it is a concern for the planet and people in general, then why is it primarily a *First World Problem* that we need to *Export to the Third World* by force and trickery? What makes us think we know the environment in Africa *better* than the Africans do, for instance?

Bill S said...

" What makes us think we know the environment in Africa *better* than the Africans do, for instance? "

Because we have the experts and people living in ignorance and poverty in Africa don't. What is so difficult to believe about that?

Theodore Seeber said...

You can't be an expert in ignorance and poverty without living in ignorance and poverty.

That is what is so difficult to believe about that.

Maybe they know something YOU don't, and you are the one, from their point of view, who is living in ignorance and poverty.

What a bigoted idea.

Bill S said...

"You can't be an expert in ignorance and poverty without living in ignorance and poverty."

That's not true. Living in ignorance and poverty doesn't make one an expert. It just makes one ignorant and poor. People who study these problems on a global scale are the experts.

Theodore Seeber said...

EXPERts require EXPERience. Didn't Massachusetts teach root words in grammar school?

The only form of study that is worthwhile is personal experience. You cannot become an expert sitting behind a desk.

Theodore Seeber said...

And in fact, to drag this back on topic- this midwife knows her clients *far better* than any westerner or even their own government; she's allowing them real choice, where the government isn't.

The alternative, of course, is that the rich people in the city need to give up the city and go back to farming.

Bill S said...

"The only form of study that is worthwhile is personal experience. You cannot become an expert sitting behind a desk."

You can become an expert on ignorance and poverty without being ignorant and poor. Studying it and working with them would lease to the development of that expertise.

Theodore Seeber said...

If one is faithful to studying and working WITH them, and not just using First World Imperial Privilege AGAINST them, then the only clear way to do that is to become like them. I maintain that the label "Ignorant and poor" is just your own prejudice and hatred.

Bill S said...

Given the subject matter, the words "ignorant" and "poor" are not meant in a derogatory sense. I don't hate people for being ignorant and poor. The women being taught the ovulation method are ignorant in the sense that they are not well educated and poor in the sense that they can't afford contraceptives. That's all I meant.

Theodore Seeber said...

In many ways, they are more wise and richer than you and I are; for they still know the value of life. I sure didn't until I found that screed on George Tiller's clinic website about how autistic people should be aborted.

Bill S said...

I don't know about autistic people being aborted, but if DNA research has led us to the point where certain hereditary diseases and undesireable traits can be detected far in advance of birth, the option of abortion should be considered. This would be especially true of severe birth defects and hereditary diseases that have caused great pain to families for many generations.

Theodore Seeber said...

What a bigoted statement against people with severe birth defects and hereditary diseases though!

"Sorry, you deserve the death penalty because we don't like your genes".

At some point I'll try to find the link in the archives- I'm sure I did a couple of blog postings on it.

Bill S said...

"What a bigoted statement against people with severe birth defects and hereditary diseases though!"

If I were starting a family and I learned thought DNA analysis or by some other means that the child would have a severe birth defect or hereditary disease, I would opt for an abortion. You can judge that any way you want but I am just being honest about it.

Theodore Seeber said...

I know you are being honest- but to a man whose entire family has genetic "defects" this sounds an awful lot like Margaret Sanger's speeches talking to the KKK about nergros

Creative Commons License
Oustside The Asylum by Ted Seeber is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at http://outsidetheaustisticasylum.blogspot.com.