Just in case the world didn't have enough people on it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Again, that's just plain silly. And more importantly it has nothing to do with the current discussion.

Reread the article again. Where does it say that it is going to be restricted only to infertile married women? You are making assumptions.

The article says using IVF for infertile women. They're not going to have ANY children without it, Married or not. GEEZE. AND they're talking about subsidizing it down to a couple of hundred dollars. Please read the material and discuss something pertinent.

I did. It is pertinent. The article says nothing about it being restricted to infertile people.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It's all about the numbers. IVF is expensive.

Say you get married and have 2-3 kiddos.

Say you have IVF instead of getting married and have 1 kiddo.

This is how IVF can actually reduce the birthrate, especially in areas where the marriage rate is very high.

If the IVF is only 200 bucks a piece in Africa, then that effect will be strongly mitigated I would think. And besides in poor rural areas having many children means wealth. Because there is few or no social security, it's the children who will take care of you when you're old. Having more children will pay off and they know that. Birthrates won't drop

@ Rah: if these people are ostracised because they have no children, you can't really oppose this. You can however try to attempt to change their cultural habits with all kinds of projects, and of course, try to reduce normal births with the regulars. That however, won't happen until the general wealth of your average African rises, as prices will go up, more commodities will be regarded as fundamental and having more children will become costly.
There are too many people on our earth, but refusing to help those people that need it isn't really the answer.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Reread the article again. Where does it say that it is going to be restricted only to infertile married women? You are making assumptions.



I did. It is pertinent. The article says nothing about it being restricted to infertile people.

Ordinary Africans will just do it the natural way if that works out fine for them. Why would they pay for it, especially if they're very poor.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Reread the article again. Where does it say that it is going to be restricted only to infertile married women? You are making assumptions.



I did. It is pertinent. The article says nothing about it being restricted to infertile people.

You apparently have common sense issues. Why would anyone use IVF if they were fertile? We're not talking about using it for selecting males or something like that (as far as I know)... we're talking about using it for infertilitiy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would you have IVF if you can have 2-3 kids without it?

If you are a single woman? Your choices are to sleep with a guy that you really don't want to spend the rest of your life with, or wait for the guy and maybe not have kids at all.

Does marriage automatically make you fertile?

Yeah, it does actually. You are more likely to have kids when you are married then if you are single.

[Ben Kenobi]

You apparently have common sense issues. Why would anyone use IVF if they were fertile? We're not talking about using it for selecting males or something like that (as far as I know)... we're talking about using it for infertilitiy.

Question asked, question answered.

You might not be talking about using it to select the right man for your kids, but that is how IVF is used in the west by some, and how it will be used in Africa.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ordinary Africans will just do it the natural way if that works out fine for them. Why would they pay for it, especially if they're very poor.

The question you should be asking is why are they being burdened with a method that is both expensive and ineffective given superior alternatives.

Why is the west using more sexual imperialism to impose their ways on the rest of the world?

[snoopy369]

Umm... ben, you're smoking some good weed there. I was talking about selecting male BABIES (ie, China), not selecting parents.

Are you under the impression that $200 is a half week's pay in Africa or something? $200 is a lot of money to the folks who are doing the majority of the birthing, and they're not going to be able to afford its use for that reason. If this were China I'd worry ... but it's not, and there's no evidence supporting that stance.

If you want to find evidence it will be used this way, then feel free to post it

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The question you should be asking is why are they being burdened with a method that is both expensive and ineffective given superior alternatives.

Why is the west using more sexual imperialism to impose their ways on the rest of the world?

They are being offered a cheaper alternative to what they have now, it's not like IVF is impossible in Africa. Just unaffordable.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you under the impression that $200 is a half week's pay in Africa or something? $200 is a lot of money to the folks who are doing the majority of the birthing, and they're not going to be able to afford its use for that reason.

Sigh, cut this out, use this as my reply to trianus.

If you want to find evidence it will be used this way, then feel free to post it

As my friend said, it has all the benefits of barhopping, but you get to pick the guy, he can't turn you down and you aren't at risk of any diseases.

[Ben Kenobi]

They are being offered a cheaper alternative to what they have now, it's not like IVF is impossible in Africa. Just unaffordable.

There are methods that don't cost anything.

[snoopy369]

Ben ... if you want to make that argument, find some EVIDENCE that it is going to happen. $200 is too much to afford to be 'choosy'.

Indeed, there are methods that don't cost anything, to YOUR problem. For infertile women, there are ... no methods other than just not having children.

[onodera]

Can't they spend the money on Westernization propaganda instead? "A single childless woman? Sounds cool!"

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben ... if you want to make that argument, find some EVIDENCE that it is going to happen.

You'd be surprised what people are willing to pay. If people can pay 10 grand to do it here, then people will pay 200 dollars even in Africa.

[rah]

Jesus Ben, the guy they're quoting is "head of a task force at the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology studying infertility in developing countries" WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY"RE TALKING ABOUT.

So having everything you bring up ridiculed you have to lower yourself to a arguing about that?

I'm sorry, you're pathetic.

I'd rather spend the time discussing issues that actually pertain to my post. (thank you Traianvs)

My fear is that it will be tough to change the cultural habits when you're offering more ways to have children.
It's like encouraging poor women in the US not to have more children, but then giving them a welfare check based on the number of children they have. States that have done this have been more successful in that area. As you pointed out some areas in africa consider children as wealth.

I have no problem with people paying to have children they can support.

And how successful do you think circumcisions in Africa will be?