Is "Save the Children" against birth control?

[TheLoneGunman]

This is a serious question, because I am unsure of their position.

I was seeing part of a "Save the Children" infomercial and they were focusing on American families. A lot of their "clients" had very young children. I was therefore thinking that it was likely that many of the families had these kids while they were already lacking enough food.

If "Save the Children" was not actively preventing this then they were contributing to the problem. What is worse is that if they were spreading religous doctrine that birth control was wrong (even if this message was just spread in a casual way) then they deserve no support from others.

Sam Kinison said a few times that rather than offering food to the starving people, he would offer them a u-Haul so they could move to an area with food and jobs. This seems simplistic, but it is true. You see these people complaining that the soil won't allow them to grow crops so they rely on handouts and rather than go to an area with better soil, they stay there and wait for handouts.

[pennypinch]

Hmm, as dubious as it might be to rely on doctrine from the Sam Kinison School of Social Science (), I see where you're coming from.

I believe Save the Children is a Christian-based organization, but that's just an impression. Moreover, I'm of the mind that, and as callous as this may sound, starvation and death were effective ways of dealing with population control and the well-being of others. There's an upper limit to what the earth can provide; humans seem to think they're immune to those realities. Especially without some of the more sophisticated techniques the First World has, these people are being artificially propped up by charity organizations.

If you see the statistics on the deforestations going on in some African towns, it's startling.

[TheLoneGunman]

Wow! I completely agree.

Again to use a dubious source, "The Matrix," humans ARE a virus. They don't allow natural selection to work and instead prop up their weak.

The reason that gazelles allow their fellow gazelles to be eaten is that it cleans up the gene pool. The stupid and the slow are eaten before they can reproduce leaving only the smart and fast ones. The lions that are too lazy and stupid starve to death. If the ambitious lions helped out the lazy ones, then the lions would begin to die out as all would become lazy.

Yes, they are a Christian organization which tends to make it worse. I have heard many first hand stories about people who received aid and they said that it was all tied in with religious doctrine. If you wanted to eat, you had to attend a service or something similar. This is unconscionable because it means that you either have to deny your faith (if you aren't Christian) or go without food or assistance.

[Doomer]

Dispicable thieves.

I doubt that 2 cents on the dollar actually gets to the kids. The rest is absorbed by "Administative Costs".

Surely Hell has a special place for these bastards.

If people who, for whatever reason, couldn't properly raise a child practiced birth control then this scum would be out of business so sure, they're againest it.

[pennypinch]

Responses like the one above really rile me.

While I certainly don't agree with some of the bloated bueracracy that afflicts a lot of charities, the implication that working for a non-profit = pro bono work is plainly wrong. The fact that these things are poorly run is vastly different from some sort of conspiracy to keep the starving down.

Some decry the high salaries that the heads of these organizations get. Look at it this way. If a head of a charity gets paid a million, and brings in $1,000,010 that otherwise would not have made it in, that's worth it.

Hell, I don't even work in non-profit, but it should be viewed as a relatively noble occupation. Don't blame those that work for these guys because they're bloated messes. They're still getting help to those can can use it that otherwise would not get it.

[TheLoneGunman]

Originally posted by pennypinch
Some decry the high salaries that the heads of these organizations get. Look at it this way. If a head of a charity gets paid a million, and brings in $1,000,010 that otherwise would not have made it in, that's worth it.

Well, let's carry out your example to its logical extreme. The CEO you mentioned netted $10 for the agency. On the other hand, if you had 10 girl scouts selling cookies and each netted $10, then you would have $100 from one afternoon's work and no one would be slighting the girls while they do look sideways at the CEO.

Also, one of my favorite types of charities is "Habitat for Humanity". They build a house in the community and then allow someone to move in and get a very affordable mortgage under a number of special conditions (unrelated to religion or political beliefs). One of the conditions is that the receipient must have helped build several previous houses in the past. In this way, labor is repaid with a tangible asset. This is not a CEO building a shopping mall for himself, but a person who might even be homeless, building himself a home. I have yet to hear about a single case where Habitat has failed to improve someone's situation or where the recipient has failed to live up to the terms of their ownership agreement.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman

Originally posted by pennypinch
Some decry the high salaries that the heads of these organizations get. Look at it this way. If a head of a charity gets paid a million, and brings in $1,000,010 that otherwise would not have made it in, that's worth it.

Well, let's carry out your example to its logical extreme. The CEO you mentioned netted $10 for the agency. On the other hand, if you had 10 girl scouts selling cookies and each netted $10, then you would have $100 from one afternoon's work and no one would be slighting the girls while they do look sideways at the CEO.

But must the Girl Scouts' involvement be in lieu of the CEO's performance?

[Doomer]

I had the "pleasure" of visiting the Habitat for Humanity headquarters once. It's a VERY rich organization that spares NO expense. Everything about it reaked of money.

THE ARE NOT DOING THE LORD'S WORK, THEY ARE DOING THEIR OWN!!!

[eSDee]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
Wow! I completely agree.

The reason that gazelles allow their fellow gazelles to be eaten is that it cleans up the gene pool. The stupid and the slow are eaten before they can reproduce leaving only the smart and fast ones. The lions that are too lazy and stupid starve to death. If the ambitious lions helped out the lazy ones, then the lions would begin to die out as all would become lazy.

This is some elitist bullshit. The fact that those kids don't always have something to eat everyday, doesn't make them stupid or slower, it just means they didn't have the opportunity that most Americans have. It certainly does not give reason for them to die of starvation or disease either. The fact that you even jokingly suggest this shows how incredibly shallow and uncompassionate you are.

Yes, they are a Christian organization which tends to make it worse. I have heard many first hand stories about people who received aid and they said that it was all tied in with religious doctrine. If you wanted to eat, you had to attend a service or something similar. This is unconscionable because it means that you either have to deny your faith (if you aren't Christian) or go without food or assistance.

Wow TLG, I never knew you were such a humanitarian, going out to the families that have benefitted from the STC fund since you found out this info first hand. Save the Children seems to me to be a fantastic organization, despite what you say. I don't know everything about it, but I have seen some good reports about the positive things that they have accomplished over the years. For instance, they are currently helping out Earthquake victims in El Salvador. Here is a little of what they have done:


Save the Children continues to focus on the most urgent needs of Salvadoran children and families impacted by the series of earthquakes and aftershocks that has killed hundreds, leveled buildings and destroyed water systems in cities and the countryside. Enhanced relief and rehabilitation efforts implemented by Save the Children are underway to respond to thousands of families in need of shelter, clean water, and healthcare services. 2,305 women and children have received psychosocial assistance in the form of Crisis Intervention Workshops conducted by field staff and volunteers. In coordination with Peace Corps, Save the Children has built 1,785 temporary shelters benefiting more than 8,925 people in eight departments throughout the country.
A total of 584 rolls of plastic, 19,219 blankets, 10,000 mattresses and 6,000 water jugs have been distributed. In total, 3,517 temporary shelters have been erected in the two months following the initial earthquake, using local materials.


In 2 months! That sounds pretty damn productive to me. And this is just one of many places where they have helped out.

TLG, I have noticed that every chance that you get you bash Christianity. You have some serious issues with most other religion as well. You are welcome to your opinion, but the fact that you continually smear the names of almost everything remotely connected to religion, without a credible argument discredits everything that you write. Believe it or not, some of these organizations actually have people in mind before money. If lives are saved and opportunity provided, then as far as I'm concerned its a good thing.

Again to use a dubious source, "The Matrix," humans ARE a virus. They don't allow natural selection to work and instead prop up their weak.

Quoting logic? used in a science fiction movie. That's classic. No wonder you have no compassion for other human beings, you believe everything you see on TV. I suggest shutting it off, and going out into the real world once in a while.

With all the shitty things that happen in the world, it is refreshing to know that there are people out there that sacrifice their lives for others by volunteering for these organizations as well as others. It doesn't matter what religion they are affiated with, they are doing a positive, wonderful thing. Atleast that's what I believe.

[TheLoneGunman]

SDL, once again I ask a simple question and you deal with an unrelated issue that I never brought up.

I didn't criticize the work of SaveTheChildren, I asked if they were against birth control. (Please re-read the title)

My concern is not how much aid they give out but rather if they let the problem (overpopulation, not earthquakes) continue and only treat the symptoms (hunger).

As far as quoting "The Matrix," I did preface it as somewhat tongue-in-cheek. What if I instead quoted Shakespeare?

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by EsDeeLoco
This is some elitist bullshit. The fact that those kids don't always have something to eat everyday, doesn't make them stupid or slower, it just means they didn't have the opportunity that most Americans have. It certainly does not give reason for them to die of starvation or disease either. The fact that you even jokingly suggest this shows how incredibly shallow and uncompassionate you are.

I don't think it's elitist at all. Personally, I don't think I've ever denied the fact that I'm a lucky individual. Not only did I have the excellent fortune of being born into a first world country, but also into a relatively well-to-do family within that first world country. I'm pretty damned lucky that I don't have to fight 20 other people in my adobe hut for a few scraps of sustenance.

Does that mean that overpopulation is NOT the problem in sub-Saharan Africa or southeast Asia? How is recognizing that elitist?

Why is there overpopulation? Some attribute the child mortality rate. Some because more children mean the parents will be better taken care of. Some because it's a cultural thing.

Now, if they were mostly left to fend for themselves, would they not eventually recognize that they have too many people in too small an area? What would a smaller population mean? More food, more opportunities, a better standard of living for all still alive, right?

Do I find the solution palatable? Of course not; you'd have to be a monster to think it "neat" or "funny" or "great". But do I think it to be a neccessary eventuality? Yup, because sustaining them on the dregs of life support that we currently offer them is only pronlonging the source of the problem.

[Grimm]

Face it, like it or not, the Four Horsemen are good at their jobs. While we have holding actions against Famine, War and Pestilence let Death have his way.
Overpopulation causes famine, disease, and war over the little remaining resources (food).
In this case Pestilence's name is AIDS. If we don't get a handle on him soon, there won't be a population problem in Africa or any other 3rd world.
We need to teach other people the technologies to grow food in those places. We need to show them how to fight those diseases and make cures available when we have them (after our needs are met). But it is their responsability to feed themselves and heal themselves. We have enough of our own problems. We don't need to be telling other people how to live their lives, especialy when they don't want to listen.

[froggystyle]

sdl ..... you who are so quick to defend religion, I have news for you. The matrix is roughly based on the same principle as christianity.

Heres a rough storyline of the matrix : humans are living in darkness and dont know it then the messiah comes and shows them the light..

does that sound familiar to you at all

so if your gonna call the matrix pure science fiction then you are also calling christianity science fiction.

next..I happen to agree with you about save the children though. Whomever proffits however much...save the children have made numerous accomplishments in those areas and have done many things to stifle human suffering. I commend anyone who even sets out on those ideals. I work for a nonprofit organization that provideshealthcare to those who cannot afford it otherwise and let me tell you...I have seen the big boss and hes got mucho mucho dinero but we still provide about 120,000 people with inexpensive healthcare.

Yes maybe more could be done, but the important thing is that something is being done at all.


Finally: I have heared that in alot of third world countries women are forced to have unprotected sex by the males. The mles do not want women to use condoms they want the feeling..then women get pregnant..that is a bad thingbut it gets worse.

I was just reading in businessweek that over 80 different topical ointments have been invented that prevent the spread of stds. They are also so cheap to produce that they could be easily given out in thrid world countries

Heres the kicker...since these ointments are so inexpensive, the pharpaceutical companies are not willing to fund the fda tests which could cost up to 10 million per ointment. and without that funding these ointments would not be tested. hence not produced or distributed.

and now for the surporise ending, two major players have stepped in to aid the developers in getting these ointments passed throught he fda..Can you guess who? No its not save the children, no not the red cross...its is our freind Bill Gates. he has dontaed over 10 million dollars to the cause of advancing these ointments through the fda system and as i have heared he has now donated even more. Guess who else, johnson and johnson has made a sizable humanitarian donation to the cause as well. thanks to them the top four or five most promising ointments will be tested int he next few coming years by the fda. So here we see the non profit organizations microsoft, and Johnson and Johnson contributing to the humanitarian effort. I hope that andswers your question tlg

[plutarcho]

Over population is not a problem. Malthus was dead wrong. We have almost an infinite capacity to produce food (thanks to technology). Remember, we pay farmers to not produce food!

Distribution of resources is a problem. Whether it is the government, an "invisible hand", or charity is a different question.

As for christian charity, brought up in this thread, remember that charity is important not only for the receiver, but for the giver. Individual sacrifice is good for the soul.

So the answer is not in birth control, but distributing the resources that we have. I agree that it is important to have self-sufficiency, but stabilizing chaotic governments is a long process that won't help those who are starving now.

Note that while the Matrix does have overtones of Christianity, it is not a perfect allegory.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by plutarcho
Note that while the Matrix does have overtones of Christianity, it is not a perfect allegory.

Yeah, Keanu didn't even have long hair OR a beard!

[TheLoneGunman]

If a Somali tribesman doesn't have food, whether due to a drought or because the local militias are preventing food from getting in, he is still starving.

If he has children, they too will starve.

If we desire to play international policeman (and both George W and Colin Powell made it clear they DON'T) then we can clear the foodlines. Otherwise, we just need to discourage the tribesman from reproducing as it will just create more starving children.

If there was any slight of Christianity it was simply because in my experience they seemed to have the most groups that agressively evangalized those they helped and also seemed the least flexible on birth control.

[plutarcho]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman

Otherwise, we just need to discourage the tribesman from reproducing as it will just create more starving children.

Ahh, there's the rub!

It is not just that you want to make birth control available to these people, so they have a choice, but you want to discourage them from having children.

You have a clear normative bias to your position just as the Christian groups do.

In most cultures, having children is a good thing. To walk into someone's home or town and "preach" the good word of modern Western society (that having children is really undesirable and indeed unnecessary) carries it's own moral tone.

[TheLoneGunman]

Fine.

How about a compromise.

Week 1 we offer birth control + food + education

Week 2 we do it again

Week 3 we only offer birth control

Week 4 the same

Week 5 tell them that they are on their own

[plutarcho]

How about:

1) You do nothing.

2) You let organizations like "Save the Children" do whatever they want to.

You lose nothing (no money, no time, no headaches). And the people who are willing to put in time, money, and concern, help to save some starving people. As long as these people keep doing, it there is no skin off your back. If it doesn't "solve" the problem, they will have to just keep pouring in their money.

[TheLoneGunman]

Actually it is "skin off my back" in several ways:

1. The Shrub wants to fund places like this out of taxmoney

2. These places sustain/promote overpopulation. As a result, the problems remain/get worse. If they had zero population growth then throwing money at the problem would heal it. In this case throwing money is like gas on the fire.

3. It indirectly increases taxes because their donations are tax free so less taxes paid in so everyone's rates go up. Since their budgets can increase infinitely, this can spiral.

4. It is an infinite problem when you fail to eliminate population growth. If you were curing burn victims or AIDS patients, there are finite numbers. In the STC cases, they just keep cranking out the kids which keeps cranking up the amount of food required.

5. It interrupts my TV watching when they run their specials. (Ok lame answer, but I need something for the less articulate ones to attack)

[pennypinch]

Ah, plutarcho, Malthus is only wrong assuming a borderless society with free (i.e., no money) exchange. Sure, we can grow more food than we could possible eat. Likewise, sub-saharan africans can barely grow enough to feed a fraction of their population. Assuming we live on pre-historic Gaia, yes, overpopulation is not a problem.

However, there are geographic and economic realities. Food cannot be transferred easily from here to where it can be used. That producers of such food must somehow be compensated for their work. The US can support such a large population precisely because it did not start from a position of "overpopulation", and our ancestors were both strong and well-nourished enough to develop advanced technologies.

I'm saying that in order to get to a particular point, you must walk before you run. If, culturally, these people cannot evolve/devolve from the "more children = more wealth" paradigm in the name of survival, then perhaps it truly is a question of social Darwinism.

Now, that said, I think the First World has to come to grips with cultural relativity. We cannot continue to try and hold these developing nations up to the same advanced free trade and environmental standards to which we hold other developed nations. To travel to a point, then play scorched earth with the road there is just plainly unfair.

[plutarcho]

Actually it is "skin off my back" in several ways:

1. The Shrub wants to fund places like this out of taxmoney

Yes, No, Maybe, who knows what he is thinking. Whether the US gov't should provide aid in these situations is a political question. This doesn't seem to be what we are talking about, but rather whether charitable organizations should attempt to alleviate poverty without promoting anti-population growth measures. Your claim is that they should promote these policies because they would otherwise be ineffective at solving poverty in the long term, and that this impacts you/us negatively.

2. These places sustain/promote overpopulation. As a result, the problems remain/get worse. If they had zero population growth then throwing money at the problem would heal it. In this case throwing money is like gas on the fire.

This assumes that overpopulation is the source of poverty or that at least that short-term fluctuations in agriculture, weather etc. reach famine scale because of overpopulation.

Not true. Political reasons are the primary cause of resource scarcity in developing nations. And we are not talking about democratic governments where officials can be voted out of office. Rather, what we see are chaotic warlords who use terrorism and mob rule to take what they what wealth the country has and place it into a Swiss Bank Account. "Presidents" usually control land rights so even subsistence agriculture is only available on the poorest land. (The good lands are given to political cronies). Those who do try to flee end up as political refugees in neighboring countries (if they aren't slaughtered on the way out) that aren't much better. There are tons of Ethiopians who are trying to establish their Jewish roots so that they can seek citizenship in Israel.

So zero population growth has nothing to do with the situation. Dividing zero among 10 million versus 5 million is irrelevant.

3. It indirectly increases taxes because their donations are tax free so less taxes paid in so everyone's rates go up. Since their budgets can increase infinitely, this can spiral.

This is, of course, true of all charitable donations. There is a myriad of problems wrong with taxing charity. Charitable organizatins do it better, and if you are talking about personal responsibility, this extends to communtity responsibility as well. It is important for individuals to take responsibility of social problems themselves and not obviate that responsibility by saying "just let the gov't take care of that, that's why I pay taxes". Usually gov't screws it all up and local problems usually need local solutions. Read Etzioni Spirit of the Community. Gov't has a vested interest in encouraging charity so it doesn't have to take care of all problems. The way gov't encourages behavior is to not tax it (deductions for morgages and kids while you are at it).

More importantly, you'll be doling out birth control forever to get population growth down to replacement level. That'll cost you a few bucks as well.

Even if the process is infinite, we probably make more keeping them in poverty through interest payments on debt owed to US banks.

4. It is an infinite problem when you fail to eliminate population growth. If you were curing burn victims or AIDS patients, there are finite numbers. In the STC cases, they just keep cranking out the kids which keeps cranking up the amount of food required.

My point is, we can dump more food than they can eat, because we've got it (we could stop paying farmers to not grow food). There is absolutely no reason to eliminate population growth. Especially since many European countries have dropped below replacement levels. Let'em all reproduce like rabbits. Stopping won't solve any problems and having more doesn't create anymore problems.

5. It interrupts my TV watching when they run their specials. (Ok lame answer, but I need something for the less articulate ones to attack)

Yeah, but the Sally Strother's South Park episodes are the best (the ones with Starvin' Marvin).

OK, enough, I'm going home (it's 12:47am here and I must sleep).

[superhero voice] You are a worthy opponent TheLoneGunman. We will meet again someday. [/superhero voice]

[/B][/QUOTE]

[plutarcho]

Pennypinch, I have much to say, but haven't seen my hubby since thurs and want to go home and see him before he goes to sleep (probably too late). Check the board in the A.M.

[froggystyle]

The Sally Struthers South Park Episode is about how the do good save the children groups collect your money and then hoard it and keep it from the starving children....that episode supports TLG's point. I dont know if youve all noticed it but south park generaly has strong underlying sociopolitical points in every episode

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by plutarcho
Over population is not a problem. Malthus was dead wrong. We have almost an infinite capacity to produce food (thanks to technology). Remember, we pay farmers to not produce food!

riiiiiight... and you got what kind of degree from which school of agriculture?!?!?!?!?
almost infinite translates roughly as LIMITED. if nothing else, we are limited by the number of molecules in the universe, so eventually the j-curve is gonna have to level off into an S ... most estimates say that our planet can handle somewhere between 10 and 20 billion people before the air and water goes to hell and we all die.

we can put a lot more people on this planet than we already have (at the expense of a lot of wilderness) but not an infinite number.

starvation IS a very effective method of population. we don't use it anymore, because we don't have to and dying of starvation sucks. we would rather die of old age. that's fine. but we are approaching a time when other means of population control must be employed, and we have yet to decide as a species how best to accomplish it.

responsible people will have only the number of children they can afford. irresponsible, uneducated, and religiously motivated people will have more. nobody really knows what to do about that yet.

[welfareloser]

wait a minute, i'm not finished yet.

so charities wanna feed people. fine. i would be happiest if they would also promote family planning, but whatever.

i'm pretty sure that save the children is catholic-sponsored, so to them, condoms are satan's gloves.

so far, the most effective means of reducing fertility in women in third world countries is education - the more years a woman went to school, the fewer children she has.

as for those who are hell-bent on having kids for jesus, we're just gonna have to let them do it until things get really dire, and then try really hard to convince them not to, and if things get even worse, we'll get some china-style limits imposed. that won't happen until everything looks like a scene out of soylent green though, and if we reach that state, most people are not going to be complaining about baby-makin limits, anyway.