Should foreign aid is conditional to family planning in the third world countires?
339258
No, it should not. I think it should be conditional for EDUCATION. It has been proven, especially in the usa, that people who are more educated have fewer children.
214319
I would say no. Countries that are more developed like ours are going to suffer, intially. While poorer, more underdeveloped countries will reap more benefits, at least in the earlier stages.
722426
Well there's the debate whether if those effects are positive or negative in first and third world countries.  In a little more than 10 years after the creation of the WTO the world's poor nations became poorer and the rich nations wealthier.  I think any economic policy to be implemented ought to involve social development as well... it doesn't make sense to make the global exchange more efficient if the majority of people will suffer from it in the end.
766186
The birth rate among religionists reflects selfishness. How selfish is it for a couple to have more than two children in a world where the population is exploding. 40,000 children  starve to death everyday, our seas are dying from our waste, arable land is disappearing at 2% per year,finite resources (like oil) will soon run out and people have the stupidity to say the world has room for more people. Any reason NOT to have a kid is a valid reason and abortion is the final fail safe for when birth control doesn't work.
1016859
Human fertility funding will assure that those people willing to go to great lengths to have a child will be among the ones populating the world. These people will be more likely to provide advantages to a child, which will make it a more productive citizen.\n\nWith the falling rates of fertility in industrialized nations, the rate of reproduction will be much higher in poorer nations, therefore reducing the ratio of well-educated to poorly educated people, leading to an overall decline of quality of life worldwide. With fertility research, this ratio will be improved. (Doesn't mean those people will help anyone else, but it's a decent argument anyway.)\n\nThose two are the only ones I can come up with off the top of my head. You've got a tough position to support, but, as Rob Schneider says, "You can do eeeet."
558958
The more education the girls of a region receive, the lower the birthrate.\n\nEducation of women has led "developed" countries to have lower birth rates.\n\nThis education doesn't need to be about birth control - rather, just general education.  A literate woman, on average, has fewer children than an illiterate woman.\n\nAvailability of -- and education about -- contraception is also a factor. However, the education level of women is most important.
381986
I dont think so. They mainly help the developed countries at the cost of developing ones. Though the developing countries do incur some profit like removal of restrictions on export etc. but in long term these organisations arent really useful for the developing nations
754591
I think it's better to spend the money and help feed 3rd world countries instead of exploring things even though it might be useful.\nWhat we don't know yet won't hurt us but hunger is what we do know and we should try to fix it.
1176820
im guessing becoz of the poverty in third world countries and the lack  of support........here clinics give us condoms, they probably dont there, and coz of there ill conditions, it triggers it, wheras many people in uk, dont even know they have it.
1070472
I do believe that we are obligated to help people in 3rd world countries. (Mexico and Canada are not 3rd world countries.) We should help people who have nothing, or far less than us, but we don't have to give them everything. We certainly don't owe them a life, but we can help make their lives better. In poor countries in Africa, people have HIV/AIDS, are forced to live days without food or water, and they sleep on then ground outside. Those are the people we have to help. People from Canada and Mexico are not poor, and we don't owe them anything! It's pretty pathetic how they come here and expect it all. It's no easier for them, and they expect it all from us. The ones we should be helping are the people in Africa on the streets. We ARE obligated to help them.
62616
In many of the countries they are not distributing the aid AT ALL.  In some they are and those economies tend to outperform the other ones over the long term.
1085507
Hunger and poverty will always be around, but their burden can be lessened significantly.  While we cling to our faith that government will deliver us, provided that we let ourselves be taxed to death, no great dent can be put in the global issues of poverty and hunger.  \nWelfare and foreign aid do nothing but give harmful bureaucracies more and more power to abuse.  Such programs look good, but they create a system of force: govt steals from us, calling it compassion, making us victims who "gave at the tax office" and perpetuates a dependency on legalised theft.  That is not "social responsibility"!  This is a perversion of the concept of compassion, of charity, but as long as we trust religion and/or government to rescue us, there is no real help for the poor.  \n\nCompassion, NOT compulsion.  http://www.bureaucrash.com/
1073950
Most third world countries. Look at the poverty and depravity that exist in those areas. The rest of the world should be noted for their non-participation. Action speaks better than words!
387156
It really depends on who you are looking to help.\n\nThe children need clothing and school supplies.  Many NGO's (non-profits) are set up to keep kids in school and off the streets.  \n\nFamiles need food, clothing, etc, which can be donated again to the NGO's.\n\nCambodia also had very poor medical facilities and practice. Dentists are set up on the street and hospitals are almost non-existant.  The sick and unhealthy really need help with medical supplies, doctor and medical assistance, and many need shots to keep them health for the future.
591849
not every country. some nations can't even afford to feed their own people. They should concentrate on earthly needs first.\n\nBut the ones that can afford it, sure.
453071
Look up The US Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag rule.\n\nMuch of the reason why unedcuated people have more children has to do with illiteracy. Women who are educated tend to wait longer before having chilren. Those women also tend to have more money and can afford birth control. Consequently, when they do begin having children they only have 1 or 2. \n\nPoorer families need more hands to help with housework, farming, business matters, etc. Women who are not educated can only do work in the home or in the fields (or sometimes in the market). Uneducated societies also tend to have uneducated men, who, on the average, are more sexist than educated men. Such men also expect their wives to have many children. Poor societies often only value women for their housework and ability to bring babies into the world.
889299
Depending on the country...If it were an underdeveloped country I \nwould probably include the basic staples; flour, cornmeal, salt sugar, rice, etc.  and non perishable items easy to open like crackers, cookies, anything dried. i also would send shirts, shorts, flip- flops. depending on the sizes of the family members.  basic first aid supplies, simple toys or picture books and linens, diapers if family has a baby.\nand personal hygiene items.    But if it were a developed country i would ask the family.  but I have  question...why send it overseas when there are plenty of needy families right here in our country?\nGood Luck...Imma