Birth control for Gaza

[Derec]

I am convinced that, if UNRWA and other groups that purport to want to help poor Gazans really wanted to help, it would be by educating Gazans about family planning and birth control and providing access to the same. It would certainly do a lot more good than all the bags of flour or bottles of cooking oil in the world. Maybe they can put the hormones directly in the flour, if education does not work ...

Take this example:

Poverty is rife. We meet Ahmed, a 14-year-old boy, one of 40 children of a father with three wives. The extended family all cram into three rooms in a refugee camp, but Ahmed prefers to sleep on the beach. The strip of coast has a symbolic meaning for all Gazans. It offers the tantalising promise of open horizons and of food and industry. But a three-mile fishing limit is enforced by gunships. Freedom is an optical illusion and the fishing nets remain empty. “There are days,” says Ahmed, “when we only eat salt.”

40 children? That's insanity! Few people could ever provide for a brood that numerous.
There are already 2 million people in the Gaza Strip, and they are on track to double their population in 20 years yet again because of irresponsible breeding.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am convinced that, if UNRWA and other groups that purport to want to help poor Gazans really wanted to help, it would be by educating Gazans about family planning and birth control and providing access to the same. It would certainly do a lot more good than all the bags of flour or bottles of cooking oil in the world. Maybe they can put the hormones directly in the flour...

Take this example:

Poverty is rife. We meet Ahmed, a 14-year-old boy, one of 40 children of a father with three wives. The extended family all cram into three rooms in a refugee camp, but Ahmed prefers to sleep on the beach. The strip of coast has a symbolic meaning for all Gazans. It offers the tantalising promise of open horizons and of food and industry. But a three-mile fishing limit is enforced by gunships. Freedom is an optical illusion and the fishing nets remain empty. “There are days,” says Ahmed, “when we only eat salt.”

40 children? That's insanity! Few people could ever provide for a brood that numerous.
There are already 2 million people in the Gaza Strip, and they are on track to double their population in 20 years yet again because of irresponsible breeding.

Wow, I'm shocked!

Comprehensive sex education is definitely on my short list of public treasures, including availability of family planning.

But then you spoil it with an endorsement of forced eugenics/attempted genocide.

Personally, I would rather we make family planning and sex education available and accessible everywhere... But seeing as we can't even get that shit in the American South, or for your mom, why would you think it can be accomplished in the ME? I mean by all means, TRY, but shit... good fucking luck.

 

[repoman]

If they had their own state and a rock solid confidence they would not lose it INSTEAD of being pushed tp use the demographic numbers game it would be different perhaps.

Jews can have Aliyah from around the world and juice their numbers (many of them are fellow whites like Barbara Spectre) but Palestinians can't even get back home


The Aliyah-Womb war.

 

[Derec]

But then you spoil it with an endorsement of forced eugenics/attempted genocide.

Not genocide. I don't want to drive fertility to zero, at least not long term. But it should be driven down to ~2 for the good of Gazans themselves.
They behave like they are in the Monty Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" sketch and then blame Israel for not being able to feed all the bloody children they fill the bloody Strip with. It's better to clandestinely drive down fertility than for the territory to suffer a Malthusian catastrophe.

 

[fast]

Father? That has to be used loosely!

Education? What part of impregnating women yields children do they not understand?

When the parents themselves know misery for children will result, somehow I doubt explaining it adds to what they already know.

What I wouldn’t do is endorse state sanctioned free birth control. We can learn compassion after people learn to care; then, we can give a shit and tax the brown and black people to pay for 2.5% of the costs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The culture expects big families, birth control isn't going to do any good.

Furthermore, the leadership wants it that way--you need impoverished people to use them as cannon fodder.

 

[starwater]

Education of women AND access to birth control is the best approach. Educated women have less children.

 

[fast]

Education of women AND access to birth control is the best approach. Educated women have less children.

I have a question about the word “access.”

Let’s say there is an abundant supply of birth control medication located in legal dispensaries at every street corner. Suppose for the sake of argument that the birth control medication comes in the form of a pill and will effectively work.

Let’s also suppose that never is the medication absolutely free; however, let us all suppose that it is extremely cheap: one penny for an entire years supply.

In my mind, there is no question that everyone has access, but if someone doesn’t have that penny necessary to legally obtain the product, does that mean the person doesn’t have access? Is there not a point where we can say all has access but cannot afford it?

Maybe I’m using the word “access” wrong, but if there is a bus stop and you are broke, it’s not exactly the case you don’t have access but instead cannot afford the access to (in this instance) public transportation; however, I came across a definition of “access” that doesn’t jive with that train of thought. It suggests that if I am unable to [legally] obtain what I want, then I do not have [legal] access.

I’m in favor of it being permissible for anyone to buy a Lamborghini, but I’m not in favor of supporting their ability to pay through taxation—regardless of their transportation needs.

Birth control may fall under the umbrella of health care needs, and I have no qualms with people screwing till the moon grows weary, and the existence of available dispensaries to offset the consequences of their deeds, no problem, but if this access thing you speak of requires taking from others through taxation, I’m in favor of not taxing others to compensate for a persons unwillingness to refrain from engaging in acts that are known to be costly.

That doesn’t mean people who cannot afford the upcoming baby-rearing costs of satisfyig their sexual needs (in certain child producing ways) may not have an available means of thwarting the usual impending consequences of coitous, but abstinence is less egregious than taxing those capable of showing a little more restraint.

 

[repoman]

Charlie Kirk (swell guy and Zionist shill) complaining about the Palestinian Authority bsnning LGBT activity.

Boom! The settlements are justice now!

 

[starwater]

Education of women AND access to birth control is the best approach. Educated women have less children.

I have a question about the word “access.”

Let’s say there is an abundant supply of birth control medication located in legal dispensaries at every street corner. Suppose for the sake of argument that the birth control medication comes in the form of a pill and will effectively work.

Let’s also suppose that never is the medication absolutely free; however, let us all suppose that it is extremely cheap: one penny for an entire years supply.

In my mind, there is no question that everyone has access, but if someone doesn’t have that penny necessary to legally obtain the product, does that mean the person doesn’t have access? Is there not a point where we can say all has access but cannot afford it?

Maybe I’m using the word “access” wrong, but if there is a bus stop and you are broke, it’s not exactly the case you don’t have access but instead cannot afford the access to (in this instance) public transportation; however, I came across a definition of “access” that doesn’t jive with that train of thought. It suggests that if I am unable to [legally] obtain what I want, then I do not have [legal] access.

I’m in favor of it being permissible for anyone to buy a Lamborghini, but I’m not in favor of supporting their ability to pay through taxation—regardless of their transportation needs.

Birth control may fall under the umbrella of health care needs, and I have no qualms with people screwing till the moon grows weary, and the existence of available dispensaries to offset the consequences of their deeds, no problem, but if this access thing you speak of requires taking from others through taxation, I’m in favor of not taxing others to compensate for a persons unwillingness to refrain from engaging in acts that are known to be costly.

That doesn’t mean people who cannot afford the upcoming baby-rearing costs of satisfyig their sexual needs (in certain child producing ways) may not have an available means of thwarting the usual impending consequences of coitous, but abstinence is less egregious than taxing those capable of showing a little more restraint.

It takes education and changing the "more children the better" norm.

 

[Jarhyn]

Education of women AND access to birth control is the best approach. Educated women have less children.

I have a question about the word “access.”

Let’s say there is an abundant supply of birth control medication located in legal dispensaries at every street corner. Suppose for the sake of argument that the birth control medication comes in the form of a pill and will effectively work.

Let’s also suppose that never is the medication absolutely free; however, let us all suppose that it is extremely cheap: one penny for an entire years supply.

In my mind, there is no question that everyone has access, but if someone doesn’t have that penny necessary to legally obtain the product, does that mean the person doesn’t have access? Is there not a point where we can say all has access but cannot afford it?

Maybe I’m using the word “access” wrong, but if there is a bus stop and you are broke, it’s not exactly the case you don’t have access but instead cannot afford the access to (in this instance) public transportation; however, I came across a definition of “access” that doesn’t jive with that train of thought. It suggests that if I am unable to [legally] obtain what I want, then I do not have [legal] access.

I’m in favor of it being permissible for anyone to buy a Lamborghini, but I’m not in favor of supporting their ability to pay through taxation—regardless of their transportation needs.

Birth control may fall under the umbrella of health care needs, and I have no qualms with people screwing till the moon grows weary, and the existence of available dispensaries to offset the consequences of their deeds, no problem, but if this access thing you speak of requires taking from others through taxation, I’m in favor of not taxing others to compensate for a persons unwillingness to refrain from engaging in acts that are known to be costly.

That doesn’t mean people who cannot afford the upcoming baby-rearing costs of satisfyig their sexual needs (in certain child producing ways) may not have an available means of thwarting the usual impending consequences of coitous, but abstinence is less egregious than taxing those capable of showing a little more restraint.

It takes education and changing the "more children the better" norm.

Which requires having lower child mortality and opportunities for work for which "more children" (read: unpaid unskilled labor) are not a contributor to success.

 

[Half-Life]

As I've always said, it's a mystery why poor people breed like rabbits and rich people do not.

You would think that logically, it should be the other way around. The more money you have for your kids, the more kids you should have. The less money you have for your kids, the less kids you should have. Seems like a logical no brainer.

Yet, it's always the opposite.

 

[starwater]

As I've always said, it's a mystery why poor people breed like rabbits and rich people do not.

You would think that logically, it should be the other way around. The more money you have for your kids, the more kids you should have. The less money you have for your kids, the less kids you should have. Seems like a logical no brainer.

Yet, it's always the opposite.

No mystery at all. "Rich people" have educated their wimmens.

 

[Half-Life]

As I've always said, it's a mystery why poor people breed like rabbits and rich people do not.

You would think that logically, it should be the other way around. The more money you have for your kids, the more kids you should have. The less money you have for your kids, the less kids you should have. Seems like a logical no brainer.

Yet, it's always the opposite.

No mystery at all. "Rich people" have educated their wimmens.

No education is required to say, "We can't afford a kid. We have no money."

 

[starwater]

As I've always said, it's a mystery why poor people breed like rabbits and rich people do not.

You would think that logically, it should be the other way around. The more money you have for your kids, the more kids you should have. The less money you have for your kids, the less kids you should have. Seems like a logical no brainer.

Yet, it's always the opposite.

No mystery at all. "Rich people" have educated their wimmens.

No education is required to say, "We can't afford a kid. We have no money."

"Required'?

 

[Toni]

People limit family size when they have a reasonable expectation that any offspring will survive until adulthood and when they do not require the labor of their offspring to survive.

 

[repoman]

If Aliyah was restricted for Jews, would the current Jews up their birth rate?

 

[Derec]

The culture expects big families, birth control isn't going to do any good.

UNRWA runs most of the schools in Gaza. They could do a lot of good through educating kids and gradually changing culture. Instead, what they mostly do is just push Hamas propaganda.
In addition, UNRWA could offer monetary incentives for voluntary vasectomies after 3rd child or something.

But you are right about the culture. This Dutch article is very telling.

"I couldn't believe it when I heard our names," says 34-year-old Omar six months later, gently touching his wife's leg. "It may sound risky to have children in our circumstances," he continues. The space is dark and bare. He lives here with his 30 year old wife Warda and 27 other family members. “But living without children has no meaning. And Allah will help us. "
[..]
Today everyone in Gaza talks about IVF. For couples who would like to have more children, or are even obsessed with it, it is natural to use fertility techniques if they are not able to do so naturally. Infertility causes isolation and social stigma, relationship problems and divorces.
[..]
Ghalayani endorses this theory [reduced male fertility], but notes that "in Gaza, infertility is soon discussed. A conception must have taken place six months after the marriage. And the more children, the better. "
[..]
"In addition to all the incentives to have more children, there is always a political agenda," said al-Rintissi health spokesperson. "Political parties want the support of the population and the only way to get it is to give them what they want most." In short, children, children and even more children.

People with no pot to piss in still want IVF. And plenty of political organizations, not just Hamas, fund it.
The birth rate in Gaza would be even higher if not for the dismal economic situation in Gaza. Many young men have to delay marriage because of lack of funds and of course, more money would mean more IVF treatments too.
Saving Gaza's marriages

Furthermore, the leadership wants it that way--you need impoverished people to use them as cannon fodder.

Indeed. We see it at these weekly riots.

 

[Derec]

Education of women AND access to birth control is the best approach. Educated women have less children.

As long as the culture emphasizes having as many children as possible, education really doesn't matter that much.

 

[Derec]

Which requires having lower child mortality

Gaza doesn't have a high child mortality rate, just a high birth rate. Hence the doubling of population every 20 years or so.

and opportunities for work for which "more children" (read: unpaid unskilled labor) are not a contributor to success.

If anything, the high unemployment is the only thing keeping the Gaza birth rate below 5 per woman, as it causes a delay in marriage.
If Gaza was more prosperous, but kept the same culture of obsession with having large families, the total fertility rate would probably shoot back up to 8 or more.