I so agree and have thought about it a lot over the years. Its frustrating the poverty and AIDS rate is growing around the world and they keep having more kids. In some parts of Africa the monthly wage is like $70. I mean come on.
2006-07-07 04:37:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The problem is, that many insurance companies do not cover birth control thus making the consumer pay full price for this. At the time when ppl are "fooling around" and "messing around" with this one and that one, they're thinking about what outfit they'll buy next and then are like OMG My pills are costing me $55? I dont have that kind of money.
I know that you can go thru the clinics and receive discounted BC as well, but again, ppl are lazy.
Its in my opinion that birth conrtrol should cost next to nothing. It will be beneficial to the community and society, as there will not be so many unwanted pregnancies, and hopefully lower the amount of people collecting welfare because they were just not ready to have children.
2006-07-07 13:17:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by camoprincess32 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If i am reading correctly you are saying why don't we give poor and starving people birth control so they don't procreate and bring more children into poverty? And by feeding it to them in their food? Well, as 'tempting' as that may be, it is cruel. You wouldn't want someone taking your bc away because you have food now would you? It is true that people who cannot afford children should not have them, but it is no ones decision or right to tell another human being that they must take contraceptives/use abortion or give up a child for adoption. They are human beings just like we are, not animals to be controlled. Granted the problem would be lessened...social morality would be also.
2006-07-07 11:39:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by missesbean 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The WHO (World Health Organization) has staunchly supported birth control and condom use (in countries with high HIV rates) for years. But one cannot morally or ethically require someone to use birth control. If that were to happen, then those people would be no better than the Chinese government, telling people to kill their 2nd born, because of population control requirements.
2006-07-07 11:56:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Brutally Honest 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that a better ideal would be to take all the $$ that we would spend on their birth control and use it to help buy more food so they wouldn't be starving anymore. Birth control is not cheap. How many people do you think you could feed with that $$
2006-07-07 12:08:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by kcsakany 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
So, these people eat sporadically- sometimes 2-3 times each week is all the chance they get. What makes you think b/c pills would even be effective?
2006-07-07 11:57:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Heather 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well i think that when you have nothing to eat the last thing you would think of is birth control pills
2006-07-07 11:33:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
that's a good idea till you think it through. women are expected to give birth at 15 to men they have been sold too to feed their older family..if they couldnt produce it would be murder. I read about it in a womans mag-horrible story
2006-07-07 11:35:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by cassiepiehoney 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes - then, while we feed them, we can introduce our own ideas on population control. Is this really any different that using bombs and gas to make sure that those who aren't bombed and gassed have enough to eat?
-j.
2006-07-07 11:37:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by classical123 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
the government want feed their own people, why do you think they would give them birth control..
2006-07-07 11:39:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by panda 6
·
0⤊
0⤋