Monday, 31 May 2010
-
Poverty in Africa and The Pill
In Nicholas Kristof's editoral "Poverty and the Pill," he makes the case poverty in Africa is linked to over-population, people having too many kids for the economy to support. Read the whole thing here.Yet birth control as an economic panacea is unsupported.
His strongest evidence that decreasing births will decrease poverty is this: "What’s more, each dollar spent on contraception would actually reduce total medical spending by $1.40 by reducing sums spent on unplanned births and abortions, the study said."
Ok, spend 1$, save $1.40. Let's do the math. You are still spending 1/1.4. That is equals 29% savings. You are still spending 71% of the amount you were before. Less than 30% savings? Kristof's presentation of the amount saved is misleading. Poverty is not from the babies. The economic problems of the region are pervasive for manifold complex reasons. How is decreasing births going to affect anything else? Why would it suddenly make all other illnesses, medical problems, public corruption, lack of education, an arid climate, etc go away?
Even if women are having fewer children, people will still need tons of medical care, food and other basic necessities. Why not spend money on those things so that women don't have to die in child birth, so that people can afford the children they want, so that basic illnesses can be treated with decent facilities and tools?
Another thing here, is that people want the children for the most part. "As Mitch and I drove through villages, we asked many women how many babies they would ideally have. Most said five or six, and a few said 10." Many of these people actually want their children? Is that not ok with Kristof? Who are we to tell anyone else how many children they should or should not have?
Further, men think many children is a sign of their virility. Even the women said, “If a woman doesn’t have a baby every two or three years, people will say she’s sterile." Sounds like more of social issue in general. If people think children are natural and good and that not having children is bad, what is contraception going to do about that? If the babies stop all of sudden, that won't change social attitudes. Who are we to judge social attitudes anyway?
So what if you don't want kids? Don't have sex. How does using each other for physical pleasure with total abandon lead to happiness and money? Now if people want unrestrained sex without babies, throwing condoms at them treats the symptom not the disease. We can't pretend that frequent intercourse with multiple partners doesn't have consequences. Having a lot of sex leads to a lot of STDs, especially AIDS. You can wear a condom, but that doesn't take away all risks of all diseases. Teaching the role of sexuality and love would actually be hugely beneficial (and have very few expenses). Advocating restraint, respect, love and monogamy can and has gone a long way towards to changing dangerous behaviors and attitudes instead of just putting a band-aid on it.
Kristof posits that without reform if a woman cannot afford birth control, "she may just keep on producing babies." Firstly, I'm not sure why he talks of children as if they are non-persons, like "producing babies" is tantamount to nuclear waste. Secondly, respect in marriages needs to be cultivated. If the wife really does not want a child, and the husband is forcing himself on her, that is a problem. The solution is emphasizing the need to love and values your spouse, not just making it so that the abuse (unrestrained behavior) continues but doesn't leave a visible outcome. And if they both don't want a baby, the reality is that babies are the biological outcome of sex. So they will need to come to terms that reality: whether by avoiding sex or accepting children is up to them.
However, the main fear implied in the article is actually fear of complications in child birth. In the first quotation in the article, a woman states that she is afraid of getting pregnant again after having a life-threatening delivery, which makes it sound like fear of death is the issue here, rather than the child. And that is valid. The solution, though, is improved medical care in general. Contraception cannot produce that on its own.
So I'm not really sure why Kristof connects contraception to improved economics. Western countries developed way before birth control did. The advent of contraception did not jump-start America from third world country and turn it into a world power, so there's no reason to think that it will solve all of Africa's economic hardships. Honestly, population growth fuels the economy by providing more people who can work and come up with solutions. Please tell me how an aging population generates growth? A country can't just skip all other development and progress and go straight to birth control as some sort of cure-all (which it isn't anyway).
In the interest of full disclosure: yes, I am a Catholic. But I am not critiquing Kristof's piece just because it advocates birth control. I honestly think that the article makes little sense whether you support contraception or not. I do not see the connection is trying to between the pill and poverty. The poverty is not from the babies, and getting rid of the babies is not going to alleviate anything else.
What do you think is the best way to help alleviate poverty? Do you think Kristof has a point, that contraception would be helpful? How would it help? How should we approach the issue of global suffering and poverty in general?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: StephanieP
- Name: StephanieP
- About Me: Stephanie is a fledgling Catholic theorist with a magnifying glass at the intersection of faith and culture, and theology and technology. She holds a degree in Religious Studies from the University of Virginia and is pursuing an MA in Theology at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College. Though a penniless writer, Stephanie is eternally grateful for her starving artist husband.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 102 Views: 0 59684 Comments: 0 1789 View all posts by StephanieP
Comments (32)
Umm... you do realize that condoms have been around since about the 15th century, right? And that there are records of people using condom-like things even 3000 years ago? LOL. Oh, ignorant people talking... Hilarious.
Less babies = more time for women to become educated = more women working = less babies = more time for women to become educated... And so on. It's obviously more complicated than that, but that's pretty much how the cycle works. Sure, birth control didn't make the United States a world power. War did. Women taking up jobs they would not previously have did.
"So what if you don't want kids? Don't have sex."
So you're saying that you're only going to have sex three times in your life if you only want three kids? LOL again. You do realize that in many African cultures get married WAY earlier than people in America, right? So it's not even necessarily a question of premarital sex, it's a question of a healthy amount of postmarital sex which usually leads to babies sans birth control.
Having been to Africa, I think not having babies isn't necessarily going to solve the problem. I think there is a number of things going on in that country that won't be fixed simply by having less children. I think the number of children a woman has is hard on her in that culture, but most are proud. Teaching them proper contraception can be empowering. Education (in all things) is key. I think as the people are better educated there comes a desire to be better. The same can be said of us, we were in the same place as a country long ago and it took a great deal more than not having children to improve our place. I think too many things need to happen (that aren't happening) before Africa can rise out of poverty.
It's pretty silly to promote contraception as a cure to poverty in Africa and ignore the fact that it is an arid continent where it's hard to grow food. Mr. Kristof is one step away from advocating the beliefs of Ayn Rand and Margaret Sanger...if the babies are not avoided, then kill them because poverty is a genetic disease, not a circumstance.
The correlations and causality of poverty and family size is quite clear. The only options are abstinence, which is proven wholly uneffective, or contraception.
@Megan - "It's pretty silly to promote contraception
as a cure to poverty in Africa and ignore the fact that it is an arid
continent where it's hard to grow food."
I apologize if I'm missing something but it's pretty obvious - when a resource like food is hard to come by, less mouths to feed equals less starvation.
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - The climate of most of Africa means that no mouths to feed is the ideal situation. Ignoring the root cause of starvation, no food, to focus on how many people have no food makes no sense. Also, correlation is true, but causality is a reach. The State of Utah has both the largest average family size and one of the lowest poverty rates in America.
First of all, I loved this.
I subscribe to the idea that poverty is largely a mindset--being a victim, hopelessness, etc. Not downplaying the real economic needs and the real physical needs at all, but teaching a group of people how to get themselves out of poverty instead of randomly building houses and such would be a better approach, IMO.
~V
it seems pretty obvious to me that allowing women to have full control of when they have babies would be a benefit. in many African societies, marriage (and having sex when married) is a given... a woman being able to support herself is rare. i imagine that plenty of African women would love the ability to still get married and satisfy their husbands as they are expected to, while at the same time avoid being a baby machine.
do i think it will solve ALL of the problems? no. but your ignorance and bias are showing big time, and i really don't think your opinion is objective.
"So what if you don't want kids? Don't have sex."
you're a moron. you have a problem with people saying how many kids one should have, but you want to tell other women when they can and cannot have sex?
For most parts of rural Africa, people still farm using traditional methods. Basically, the more children a farmer has, the more hands he has to help out in the farm.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Asking adults to know where babies come from does not make one a moron. Maybe it does to people who don't want anyone to ever have to take any responsibility for anything (after all, just have all the sex you want and kill the baby, right?).
Of course lacking the basic intellect required to respond without name-calling. That might make someone a moron.
Actually, poverty in Africa, has absolutely nothing to do with population, or climate. Did you know that at one point, Zimbabwe (a country in africa) was a major exporter of grain? It could not only feed it's only people, but could feed the people of other countries. Why is it now importing grain and the people are starving?
Change of Government. They had a government, that is anti western culture. They stole the land away from a most of the white farmers, and gave the land to Black farmers, as a way of "getting back to africa" They also did away with western methods like mechnical plows, and went back to oxen pulling plows. When they did this, the amount of food that could be produced went down, and the country started to starve.
Why would the government do this? why stay with methods that cause starvation? To quote a priest in the Asian country of Burma "Starving people are easier to control"
@Megan -
"Asking adults to know where babies come from
does not make one a moron."
sex does not ALWAYS have to equal pregnancy. i figure that if God wanted it that way, there would be no need for infertility treatments. if you want it to, then by all means never use contraception and ONLY have sex when you are planning to get pregnant. but don't pretend that the introduction of contraception into the mix prevents people from fully understanding the consequences of sex. from my experience, being aware of the consequences leads to the decision to use contraception.
and i think you missed the point. the OP said: "Who are we to tell anyone else how many children they should or should
not have?" you cannot in one breath condemn the idea of restricting reproductive rights, while in another (actually, the rest of the post) argue that methods allowing women to choose when they can and cannot get pregnant are bad. the only difference between abstaining for fear of pregnancy, and contraception, is that one still allows you to have sex. by your argument, infertile adults (by birth or old age, or through vascetomy and other medical methods) should never be allowed to have sex because they won't be getting pregnant from it.
"Maybe it does to people who don't want anyone
to ever have to take any responsibility for anything (after all, just
have all the sex you want and kill the baby, right?)."
it always makes me laugh when people argue against contraception and abortion in the same breath. guess what? i have sex. and i take the pill. and i'm not a whore sleeping around with a ton of guys who plans to abort every single pregnancy. hell, i've never even been pregnant. i hate to shatter your stereotype, but you need to grow up at some point. if i were irresponsible, i wouldn't be on contraception.
"Of course lacking the basic intellect
required to respond without name-calling. That might make someone a
moron."
i could say the same for someone making blanket judgments and assumptions. your decision to avoid direct name-calling doesn't make your comments directed at me any more civil or intelligent.
Obviously, there's much more to the problems in Africa than simply overpopulation. There's government corruption, skewed social systems, improper food and water distribution, and a plethora of other reasons. But you can't just say "Don't want kids? Don't have sex!" because for most African women that's not a choice they get to make. Their husband will have sex with them whether they want it or not, and birth control is a way for a woman to help control that part of her life. If we can give out birth control, and if we can help women gain control in a system that more often than not, treats them like shit, then I say, we go for it. Being prudes over which method of birth control we allow these impoverished women to have is not going to solve anything.
This isn't a serious post, right?
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - I've noticed that you like to call me names. "Moron." "Dumb" Doesn't answer the question though.
@Megan - is it too early to say I love you?
Yes, personal responsibility for actions, including sexual ones, would go a long way, I think.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - There is more to responsibility than popping a pill. " i hate to shatter your stereotype, but you
need to grow up at some point."
I could be wrong, but you may pigeon role religious thinkers overly quickly. Being against contraception and abortion has more to do with a holistic view of the person than condemning people. My point is never to say that "You are a bad person." I hope I never come across that way. The point is that all actions are directed towards a certain end or goal, and trying to make sure that those align with what/who really want to be is what I am trying to get at.
@StephanieP - actually, i asked you a question. i'll try again, since your feelings were probably so hurt that you missed it: you argue that telling women how many kids they can have is restricting their rights IN THE SAME POST as you telling people not to have sex if they don't want kids. are you being serious? last i checked, consenting adults should be allowed to have sex whenever they choose, children or not. if telling a woman to only have two kids is restricting her rights, telling her she can only have sex when she wants kids certainly is as well. and you seem to make this argument as though denying them contraception is going to somehow enforce abstinence. i'd like to invite you to the local high school and see how well that policy has worked out.
so, are you really arguing that we should make enforcing abstinence over contraception a central part of African policy? why should a woman in Africa be denied sexual rights her American counterparts fought so hard for?
@StephanieP -
"There is more to responsibility than popping a pill."
and there's more to motherhood than being physically capable of pregnancy, and more to responsibility than carrying a pregnancy to term.
"I could be wrong, but you may pigeon role religious thinkers overly quickly."
well, she pigeon-holed pretty quickly herself. i may be pro-choice politically, but i'm pro-life personally and would never have an abortion. i don't appreciate the assumption that i would abort every pregnancy in sight simply because i think unmarried people having sex is okay.
"I hope I never come across that way. The
point is that all actions are directed towards a certain end or goal,
and trying to make sure that those align with what/who really want to
be is what I am trying to get at. "
i understand. but the point is that you're trying to make these decisions for other people, it seems. and that is what i view as the huge difference between pro-choice/pro-contraception and pro-life/pro-abstinence. women should be allowed to make those determinations for themselves, not be forced or coerced into something because they are denied access to either abortion or contraception. i don't presume to know what the best goal is for a woman halfway around the world in a completely different culture, because i see that as one of the highest forms of arrogance and pride.
on a side note, i found this statement of yours very ironic: "Who are we to judge social attitudes anyway?" you certainly seem to be doing a lot of judging in your post.
anyway... you say things like "Why not spend money on those things so that women don't have to die in
child birth, so that people can afford the children they want"... "Teaching the role of sexuality and love would actually be hugely beneficial (and have very few expenses)."....."The solution is emphasizing the need to love and values your spouse"...... honestly, how would ANY of that be prevented by introducing contraception? why would denying contraception somehow magically instill those things (because you seem to be arguing that it would)?
@Megan - "Ignoring the root cause of starvation, no food, to focus on how many people have no food makes no sense."
I don't see how you can possibly say this. A family half the size gets twice as much food. It's that simple. Less mouths to feed equals more food in each mouth.
"The State of Utah has both the largest average family size and one of the lowest poverty rates in America."
Utah is irrelevant. We're talking about starvation in third world countries.
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - OK, well, whatever. Either you just are not going to understand this rather simple concept or you are choosing to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your views. But IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN A FAMILY IF THERE IS NO FOOD. ONE PERSON STARVING OR TEN PEOPLE STARVING, MORALLY, WHAT DOES IT MATTER? Yes, I am yelling because you seem to have a comprehension problem.
As for Utah, of course you will disregard anything that doesn't support your point. You must walk away from a lot of discussions with your head held high thinking that you "won" when you just ignore anything that doesn't validate your points.
reading all these responses just makes me want to hurl
nice. I wish I had time to read more and respond, but you actually took this in a surprisingly great direction (I was prepared for a post on "Africa: take some pills and stop having babies!").
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake@xanga - "they stole the land away from a most of the
white farmers, and gave the land to Black farmers"
really? lol. that is NOT the reason africa has poverty issues.
"poor white people got their land taken from the mean africans"....to some extent I'm just laughing over the fact that someone had the gall to think this...
@ScarletMoth@xanga - did I say all of africa? I seem to remember mentioning, Zimbabwe.
here is a quote from a CNN Article "President Mugabe has said that the government would continue to seize white-owned farms as part of his land reform policy."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7968087.stm
later on in the same article "The seizure of white-owned land is one of Mr Mugabe's defining policies but his critics say it has destroyed the economy."
gee, isn't that what I said?
this is from the Council on Foreign Relations website on Zimbabwe
"When did the economy start to deteriorate?
Experts say that in the last 10 years, Mugabe has transformed Zimbabwe from a prosperous agricultural producer to a country wracked by corruption, political conflict, and economic upheaval. Half of Zimbabwe's 12.5 million people currently depend on food aid to survive. Mugabe's controversial program of forced land redistribution--commercial farms were seized from white farmers, the country's major landowners from colonial times, and turned over to blacks--sent the economy into a tailspin." http://www.cfr.org/publication/7723/africa.html#p3
So, what is your proof, that I was wrong in my original comment that Zimbabwe, has issues that stem for stealing land from white farmers, and giving it to black farmers? I have CNN and the Council on Forien Relations on my side.
But, I think what is true, for all of africa, is that a lot of the issues come from political corruption, and tin pot dictators.
@Megan - You do realize that we're talking about a completely different culture here, right? One where a lot of what you and the writer of this article are are suggesting are not options.
Contraception might not fix all of Africa's problem, but wouldn't it make finding a solution, or even just enacting one, that more simple. Women would be more empowered, less sickly and probably have longer life spans. Instead of having 10 mouths to feed, a woman might decide to have only 5 (yes, I said decide. Imagine!) children, meaning that she could focus more thoroughly on providing for and taking care of the 5 that she chose to have.
It would decrease usage of clean water, mean less of a strain on food supply and take pressure off of mothers and doctors.
I don't understand why you people demonize everything you don't understand. These people have their own culture and their own ideals and just because it does not line up with what you have decided is right for you, does not mean that we need to go in and tell them how to be (and how often to have sex) to "save" themselves. Give them tools, not preaching.
@Comrade_Snarky@xanga - your comments are always so good...