Dear Danielle,

You wrote;

"You write of 'self-serving' as if these women are going to be forced to take contraception ... Or do you think proponents of 'choice' actually mean putting contraception in their drinking water."

Not at all, my objections center around those who would have birth control as the only thing on our assistance table, or would only supply other resources with proscriptions of mandated two child families or burdensome tax regimes on what they deem as larger families.

I think choices for women don't just come from drugs or procedures that interfere with the fertility process but rather freedoms gained through education, opportunity, more equitable access to resources, and social equality.

To be concentrating only on the former which seems to be the demand of a number of the posters here is by any measure self serving.

I think it demeans us if we do not have the capacity to look holistically at where we can assist those who have been less fortuitous in their birthplace than ourselves.

I feel the fence we think we have between us may well be illusionary.

*but rather freedoms gained through education, opportunity, more equitable access to resources, and social equality.*

Err Csteele, you clearly miss the point. Whilst women have 8-10 children dangling from their aprons, they really don't have time or resources to do anything else. The very point of contraception is to give them time and resources to think about those other options.

Its quite simple. Give women the choice. Not their Govts, not the
religious leaders, not their husbands or fathers. Let women decide.

At the moment they are simply broodmares for males like yourself who
clearly don't see the importance of giving them that option. Kind of
sad really.

Steele,

"... proscriptions of mandated two child families or burdensome tax regimes on what they deem as larger families."

This was never suggested. Self determination was.

"I think choices for women don't just come from drugs or procedures that interfere with the fertility process ..."

Is this the objection? One based on health concerns? This doesn't really hold up now considering the research; and births too many, too close together are risky. First births and multi-para carry the most risk.

"... but rather freedoms gained through education, opportunity, more equitable access to resources, and social equality."

Well some of our schoolgirl mothers rather put this to the lie. It doesn't automatically follow.

I believe young women, both here and in third world countries, should have reproductive education and have access to contraceptive methods, whatever their social situation. If we wait until those you mention are implemented satisfactorily in third world countries, it could be a long time. Contraception can help women immediately. At the very least they have some control over their lives ... and those of their children.

Steele,

I will draw on personal experience. Many years ago I lived in Malaysia - there were hospitals and schools, ample facilities, and food.

I knew a married couple who had over six children. With the wife's final pregnancy her husband observed that he couldn't understand why Allah was 'blessing' him with so many children. On finding out that she was to have twins, she 'foresaw' that she would die;the husband extremely distressed, accepted this. Dying in childbirth, the doctor who attended her said that there was no medical reason that she should have.

Both she and her husband had no idea of reproduction. If they had known how to control their fertility, and had the means, this tragic situation would never have happened.

I witnessed this lack of knowledge of reproduction frequently. Certainly, if contraception had been available, women would have adopted it.

Dear Danielle,

You wrote;

Quote

Steele

"... proscriptions of mandated two child families or burdensome tax regimes on what they deem as larger families."

This was never suggested. Self determination was.

End quote

You are wrong because this is exactly what had been suggested. From the OP.

“No aid or loans of any nature or help for ANY country not signing up for two child policy in third world and ANY country."

"My first thoughts repeated here are tax those who have more kids than allowed in any country.
No food aid no SS nothing for such family.
No trade with country's that do not agree."

Look here are the facts, the third world has achieved so much in so little time in the area of maternal and infant mortality that is one of the great wonders of our age. 

For instance India in the ten years to 2009 managed to drop its Maternal Mortality Ratio by 35%, drop its Infant Mortality rate by 30% and drop its Child under 5 mortality rate by a whopping 50%.

This should be celebrated and supported rather than have threats about aid restrictions waved at them.

With only a few exceptions results like these are being achieved throughout developing nations and the third world.

It is miraculous and deserving of our applause. It is just so mean-spirited to be thinking about our aid budgets only in terms of where they might be directed to address what we perceive as threats to our country.

Thank God for Aussies like Catherine Hamlin. 

csteele your taunt brings me back.
I challenge the honesty of your memory's of our clashing back then.
Too your right to speak for others about me.
I remind you of your reporting relationship to some, who we clash about.
I seemingly unlike your self, often re visit past thread to match what is being said in current like ones.
I also note you add value to your own thoughts but give none to others.
On posting my thoughts unless I change them, and I do, I see no reason to forget them.
csteele as not PC as it ,may be to say it,I find it unlikely we will agree on much ever.
*Tell me what you really think not what you think I want to hear*
Those words opened every construction union meeting I ever held.
And point to this truth, words are nothing if you do not believe what you are saying.