posted on July 29, 2002 12:03:11 PM new
Most responsible people only have as many children as they can afford. Not being able to provide for additional children is the reason many couples decide not to have more.
And the wealthy [that you seem to so resent] aren't the one's having 10 children by 10 different fathers either. There are many poor people who have children and still realize they can only support so many. It's all about using common sense, rather than deciding the government [taxpayers] will take care of you no matter what your choices are.
posted on July 29, 2002 12:17:34 PM new
I like the way you think gravid.
Linda, the problem I see with condoms, is that while they're good at preventing STD's and pregnancy if used correctly, there just aren't enough provided to make a difference. With 70% of the AIDS statistics, Africa would need $1.7 billion dollars just for condoms alone to make a dent. In the meantime, people over there are dying. They have no available medicines to slow the disease or help with the symptoms so they die a slow death. This includes children as well.
It all comes down to money and Africa is losing ground.
P.S. For clarification, the $1.7 billion was the estimated cost for condoms over a 5 year period.
[ edited by kraftdinner on Jul 29, 2002 02:24 PM ]
posted on July 29, 2002 12:44:52 PM new
Linda-what makes you think that the wealthy aren't having alot of children and children out of wedlock ?
The reason you aren't hearing about it that the mothers of these children are paid to keep quiet. If they open their mouths the trust fund disappears.
Astinence will never work. That does not mean that some of the population doesn't practice it, nor that some of the population doesn't practice some form of fidelity, even if it's serial.
But if you're only willing to allow that those who we deem can afford children should have them, then you must be in favor of forced sterilizations and abortions, especially in China. China can't afford more people no matter how much wealth the individual has.
posted on July 29, 2002 01:01:46 PM new
kraftdinner - It's not like the US isn't giving millions of dollars to help. We had this same discussion here, maybe two years ago? There are so many reasons this problem has gotten out of hand. But they aren't from the US not trying. I don't know how to say it differently, except like I did. You cannot help those who will not help themselves. That's what I've meant when I say "we can't force them".
You projected how much money would be needed to supply the condoms, and I say most won't use them anyway, for all different reasons. To me, it's like the children that are being raised in the middle-east to hate us/want us dead. It's a mindset. The children's book I mentioned in my post is about trying to change their 'mindsets' about sexual behavior. Until that happens, it's my belief no matter how much money we throw at the problem, it's not going to be very helpful.
For me, it's this mindset that feels the US is responsible for all the problems in the world. Then we're told not to force our beliefs on these [same] other countries. Stay out of their affairs. Do you support [finacially] issues you don't agree with? I don't think any of us do. So the administrations decision not to support abortions doesn't surprise me.
posted on July 29, 2002 01:22:55 PM new
I am not in favor of forced sterilizations or abortions. Although I will admit to wishing for forced sterilization on women who have previously been convicted of killing their children.
I do feel people shouldn't have more children than they can take care of. [Both financially and emotionally.] It's a responsibility issue. Who's responsiblity are they? The parents or the government? Why would someone intentionally have more children than they can take care of? Do they? Sure...but that's why our welfare programs were maxed out, and changes were made. People what other's to start taking care of themselves. And that includes the decisions they make.
Many poor people work to limit the number of children they decide to have. That's acting responsibly. I don't agree with the mindset that says, have as many children as you want and your government will take care of you and all your needs. When we started our family the decision not to add more children to our family was based on our finances. I'm just not seeing what the problem with that is.
In my mothers generation if people couldn't care for their children they went to orphanages. They did everything they could to care for and support their children. They felt shame if they couldn't. AND THEY WERE POOR. Now...the new thought process seems to be the government owes some special entitlement to everyone.
posted on July 29, 2002 01:36:22 PM new
Linda, I don't disagree with you.
The problem seems to be over populated, underdeveloped countries. The outcome is always the same... disease and starvation. The mindset is having 20 children because 18 of them will die and the strongest (hopefully boys) will survive. Now, you have to change their way of thinking to something they've never seen or been taught, so you have to reach the young population in hopes to stop the spread.
In the meantime, all these people are dying. If like REAMOND says that AIDS might have been happening in Africa before the 80's, it makes sense as to why so many are affected.
I don't understand why the U.S. has been put in the spotlight as being the world's provider, but I'm glad they are. If Bush wouldn't spend so much on his never ending war, there might be enough to aid in helping these people. Providing one or 2 condoms a month for these men doesn't help.
(Sorry! I realize I'm all over the board here.)
[ edited by kraftdinner on Jul 29, 2002 02:01 PM ]
"We cannot overstate what's at stake here," said Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of UNICEF. "Of the 12.8 million people at risk of death, more than half are children. Without major and immediate funding from around the world, we just won't get the job done. These children need our help, and they need it now."
Bellamy pointed out that about 2.4 million of the children affected are under the age of five, meaning they are especially vulnerable to malnutrition and disease. She also made a point of connecting the impact of the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa and the impact of the drought crisis.
"This is much larger than just a food crisis," Bellamy said. "It's also a water crisis, a health crisis, an education crisis. All of this is taking place in an environment ravaged by AIDS, and the various crises are feeding each other." Bellamy added that half of all new cases of AIDS occur in young people, and noted that HIV infection rates across the six countries average 25 per cent of the total population.
"While the primary focus is the need for food, we must also address the need for medicine, water, and better sanitation. And we must respond in a way that accounts for the huge impact HIV/AIDS is having on these communities," Bellamy said.
posted on July 29, 2002 06:17:02 PM new
quote: The money that had been designated to the fund will instead be spent on child survival and health programs of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Boucher told reporters Monday./end
posted on July 29, 2002 11:22:24 PM new
How will that help the poor and aids ravaged children in South Africa or their mothers and fathers and teachers who are dying of the disease?
posted on July 30, 2002 09:39:29 AM new
I agree Helen. That's why money for Family Planning and condoms seems silly to me at this point. They still need money to help the starving, plus money for medicines and money to look after all the orphans left by this disease.
posted on July 30, 2002 10:51:35 AM new
Kraftdinner
It's so &%$##@$%^&**(*(&^%$ HOT here and I have to go out. LOL!
Actually, my comment was addressed to Linda. She inferred that since the 34 million would be spent on children in this country, that it was acceptable to neglect the children in Africa.
Bush is concerned about votes and not money in my opinion...the conservative vote.
I spent some time yesterday reading African newspapers and the situation there is horrific! Half of the population in some areas is affected.
I know that many posters here believe that the AIDs problem is hopeless but that's not the case. Poverty is certainly a major problem and education, of course. They are getting some help from UNICEF and the National Institute of Health has donated 11 million...
I just think that it's callous and cruel of Bush to refuse the UN request.
You are right on this one. The money will possibly be going to Afghanistan...which is another good cause. So many children there are orphans and we have contributed to that number. I checked out their site and that was on the top of the list.
First we bomb them and then we send them money. LOL!
Now, what are we going to do about the UN request for the African children?
The answer is nothing because George would lose a few votes. What a pitiful bonehead.
