Birth control for Gaza

[Derec]

Derec, you and I often disagree but I usually think your opinions are your own and not simply something you are parroting here.
This comment is beneath you. You may disagree or doubt that this will happen but in fact, I have all of human history on my side.

Just because something has happened in the past does not mean it will happen in every future instance. And Gaza has definitely been regressing since Hamas took over.
Now, it could be that their society and culture changes eventually, say in 60-80 years. But in the meantime their population doubles every 20 years. There are already 2 million people in Gaza, and the resources are already overstretched because of the rapidly increasing population.

They see a benefit for their current situation. You may not but they do. People who are more economically stable and who feel comfortable confident in their future tend to have smaller families.

That is exactly ass-backwards. If you are more economically stable you can afford to have kids. When you don't have two shekels to rub together and live in a house with 27 relatives, you have no businesses bringing new lives into this world.

Or it’s just a final swing of the pendulum. That happens when change is too fast or goes too far or too far too fast. IMO, that is why we are seeing such a surge of conservatism: backlash against so much social change and progress. People all over the world in many different places fear that they will lose the good parts of their culture.

I see what you are doing here. You are trying to somehow equate US (or even Europe) with Gaza. But they could not be more different. In fact, the social change many in Europe fear is Europe becoming more like Gaza because of mass migration of fundamentalist Muslims from places like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

[Derec]

What the actual fuck, Derec. Have you never learned any history at all???????? Social change takes time. Cultural change takes time.

Why are you replying twice to the same post?
But yes, I have learned history. And what I took away is that the societal change can point in any direction. Change is not necessarily for the better.

First of all, how is that any business of yours or mine?

US is deeply involved in the region and the (by now moribund) peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.
Also, as the population of Gaza increases even further, many will seek to emigrate. Some will go to other Muslim countries, but most will seek to come to the developed Western countries like US or EU countries.
In fact, that is already happening.
Young Palestinians are leaving Gaza in droves
The more children, the more pressure to emigrate.

Secondly, in many cultures, it is the custom and the expectation that family members live together. This is not just a thing in the middle east. It's also true in much of Europe, depending on the place (smaller towns are more likely) and was, in fact, the custom in the US prior to WWII and is a current trend now: three generational family homes in the US are becoming a thing.

Not with 27 family members living in the same house it is not.

It's not crazy, either. Even if you have plenty of money, it's very costly to pay someone to look after your children while you work.

Again, in some cases it may make sense to have grandparents move in with you, but the cases I have outlined do not make sense.
If you live with 27 other family members in the same house, it's stupid to seek IVF to bring additional children into the world. It will make your life worse, your children lives will suck, and you will contribute to the misery of your whole country that is already suffering under too high a birth rate.

I have friends who moved extremely close to their kids for the express purpose of helping with the grandkids.

Again, what does that have to do with the cases I posted? Nothing, that's what!

It's a way of preserving family resources and ensuring that the next generations are able to grow and prosper.

But in the case of Gaza, the next generation will not prosper because there are already too many babies being born.
Anemia among children aged 2–5 years in the Gaza Strip- Palestinian: a cross sectional study

Children are extremely important and valuable to them. Is this a choice I would have made? Not growing up here, in the life I lived but again, that's not my choice.

Not all choices are valid. A crackhead might find it very valuable to score some crack. That doesn't mean he or she is not doing severe damage to their lives.

And in this case these people are not only damaging their lives, but also lives of their children that have to live in squalor just so their parents can boast that they have a bunch of bloody children they can't afford to bloody feed!

It's a very strong cultural value: having a large family = wealth, prosperity, love of family, love of God, faith, culture, etc.

Having more children than you can't afford leads to poverty and misery, not wealth and prosperity.

Yes, I'm watching the US re-wind all its progress over the past 60 years in just a couple right now.

I agree on some things. For example, the overreach and hysteria of #metoo has made US go backwards on sexual freedoms and gender relations.

 

[Derec]

Uneducated women and girls will have no math skills or be able to read = not educated.

Again, even for women literacy rate is 95%. Reading, 'riting and 'rithmetic doesn't seem to the problem in Gaza. Extreme religious indoctrination and propaganda that more children are a demographic weapon against Israel is the problem. And unfortunately UNRWA schools are party to that indoctrination and propaganda.

 

[Rhea]

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.

Let’s say women don’t want to get pregnant, but they live in a society where they cannot legally refuse sex to their husbands.
And some prick says, “sorry, I’m not going to pay the penny it takes for you to avoid pregnancy just so your husband cn continue to legally force you to have sex!”

As if the sex is always the “fault” and intent of the women trying to avoid pregnancy.

 

[Rhea]

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.

Wow, you’ve never thought deeply enough to understand this?
When you have old-age pensions and financial security, people stop having so many kids.
Go ahead, think that through. I’ll wait.

 

[ronburgundy]

So Derec, are you logically consistent enough to conclude that Trump and the GOP have proven they have no regard for the misfortunes of poor people in America, via their constant opposition to proper sex education and access to medical care that provides birth control?

- Not a Trump nor GOP supporter
- I have always supported proper sex ed and birth control

That said, US definitely does not have a problem with out-of-control birth rates like Gaza does.

The US doesn't have the poverty rates of Gaza, but poverty in the US is highly impacted by poor sex education and lack of birth control access. Improving these would reduce the number of people born into poverty and increase the odds that those who are can get out of poverty. Trump and the GOP are actively increasing poverty via their policies, so I am glad that you don't vote for any Republicans, b/c that would mean that you actively act to increase poverty in the US.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Wow, you’ve never thought deeply enough to understand this?
When you have old-age pensions and financial security, people stop having so many kids.
Go ahead, think that through. I’ll wait.

Which doesn't explain why poor people have lots of kids in places like the US where they will get social security. Having kids is a pretty poor way to prepare for old age.

Not having kids requires planning ahead and reliable action. People who are good at such things generally aren't poor.

 

[Rhea]

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.

Wow, you’ve never thought deeply enough to understand this?
When you have old-age pensions and financial security, people stop having so many kids.
Go ahead, think that through. I’ll wait.

Which doesn't explain why poor people have lots of kids in places like the US where they will get social security. Having kids is a pretty poor way to prepare for old age.

Not having kids requires planning ahead and reliable action. People who are good at such things generally aren't poor.

Having kids is THE age old method of planning for retirement since the dawn of time. Poor people in the US have fewer kids than in countries with no safety net, and soc sec in the US is barely subsistence for the working poor. So it tracks quite logically.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which doesn't explain why poor people have lots of kids in places like the US where they will get social security. Having kids is a pretty poor way to prepare for old age.

Not having kids requires planning ahead and reliable action. People who are good at such things generally aren't poor.

Having kids is THE age old method of planning for retirement since the dawn of time. Poor people in the US have fewer kids than in countries with no safety net, and soc sec in the US is barely subsistence for the working poor. So it tracks quite logically.

If your kids are working poor they're not going to be of much help in caring for you when you're old.