They are cheek to cheek in Dhaka, but perhaps Cheryl never did
make it to the slums.

I note that the Bangaladesh Govt seemingly disagrees with the author,
for they have already put their hand up for other countries to
take climate refugees, if water levels should rise and something
like 20 million seek a new home.

What surprises me is that a so called feminist is not pushing
for better family planning to be available for third world women,
so that they actually get to choose how many kids that they have.
This would be a great opportunity to do so and the West might
just cough up. Most women, given choice, grab the opportunity,
its usually men standing in the way.

So I am not sure of the author's agenda. Is she a Catholic perhaps?

Cheryl seemingly doesen't need contraception in her life, perhaps
finding a boyfriend in the first place, is the real problem :)

Let me tell you Cheryl, most women, once they have popped out
a few, do in fact value family planning and millions in the
third world, simply don't have the options that you have.

The least that the West could do, is pay for third world women
to have better family planning

Yabby, I think you are right with your assertion that maybe this author is Catholic, and thus against contraception.

Poor women churning out child after child who they can't properly feed or house are not going to thank feminists like Ahkter, that's for sure.

She is not doing Bangladeshi women any favours by suggesting that developing countries are trying to control the poorer countries by proposing they practice better population control.

Although there is no point suggesting the West provides large family planning clinics in poor countries when their more pressing needs are food, fresh water and housing.

I really don't know what the answer is.

Regardless of Farida Akhter's seemingly silly general objection to population stabilisation and birth control, the bigger point I think she makes is that the developed countries don't want to change their own behaviour, but they want everybody else to change theirs.

She is clearly correct in saying that a country like a Australia that is doing all it can to susbtantially increase it's population, has no right whatsoever in telling Bangladesh or any other country to reduce it's population. Australia has no hope of achieving any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with a rapidly increasing population. It would have been a big challenge if our population was stable.

I applaud Online Opinion for publishing this article. It is clearly from the heart. It is important to understand that Bangladeshi's and probably people from poor countries all over the world feel that the rich world kicks them when they are down and then lectures them about how to improve.

I suppose this is the long version of my friend clownfish's comment.

Good on yer Yabby, you've not only offended women but Catholics as well. That's more than 50 percent of the world's population in one comment. They miss you at Copenhagen for your diplomatic skills.

If you can't make any contructive comments, head over to another blog and vent your sexist prejudices.

I'm for the pill but I'm also for health and sex education. When I worked in India for an NGO and we went to the slums in Mumbai, the problem wasn't population, it was education. Let me say that again, it's education.

Population is one factor but as birth rates will decline from 2050, the most crucial social and economic service we could give to developing nations is education and micro-loans.

None of this has figured in any of these blogs. It's as if Oxfam, World Vision, the UNHRC never existed.

What I am picking up is that people like Yabby would willingly support forced sterilisation programs on women in developing nations. And they'd do it from Australia. Education isn't a cure-all but it's a start - too late for Yabby and his right wing Brave New World mates.

Bugsy,

You are entitled to believe whatever information you choose to believe.

Yes, I can see that's your attitude Leigh.