Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Maggie says:
>
> >I think what we need to do is support pro-CHOICE, which is not the same as
> >pro-abortion, though abortion is a very important part of choice.
>
> Well, the question is, though, if the "international family planning
> organizations" have had a measurable impact of expanding women's
> choices in poor nations. I don't think Kerala has a lower birth rate
> than the rest of India because the former has more "international
> family planning organizations" than the latter.
>
> Charity never solves any problem, even if it's truly charitable (and
> it often isn't).
I agree that charity is rarely an answer to much of anything, but what does
that have to do with choice? I don't see international family planning
agencies as the sole representation of choice, I am only saying they should be
one of many. Also, I have a feeling that the birthrate in India has far more
to do with cultural values than any international agency -- and -- the use of
some items we associate with choice here in the USA are used to gender births
along acceptable lines in India -- i.e., sonograms are used to determine the
sex of the child and abort girl fetuses. But in my mind, that ain't choice.
Finally, I am not sure what you are disagreeing with in what I am saying -- the
issue should be choice, not one aspect of choice such as abortion, or birth
control, etc. maggie coleman
