Population Control

Do you guys worry about the human population? Because I do. There are a lot of us, and that is going to be a problem.

Population-growth is in decline in Europe and in Japan, as people (particularly women) gain more bodily and financial autonomy, focus more upon their lives and careers, and make more responsible choices when planning their families.

But that is not the case everywhere. And it’s a problem.

Did you read about how Israel may have sterilized some Ethiopian refugees without their permission or knowledge? Because I did. It is a little difficult to find a new source that is not either uncomfortable with levying the accusation, a source with a reputation for paranoid conspiracy-theories, or a news source with anti-Semitic leanings.

Just hearing the headline reminded me of two things: the first was an episode of Law & Order in which a doctor who worked at a free clinic in the inner city would occasionally implant IUDs in women whom she determined to be less-than-ideal potential parents. She did this without their permission or their knowledge (I say “less-than-ideal,” but one of the young women poured boiling water on a baby that she had already had, so don’t worry that this woman was sterilizing women whom she thought would feed their babies inorganic food or let them watch too much television). I was torn in that episode—I mean, I am a strong supporter of female reproductive rights, and that does not mean just supporting a woman’s unquestionable right to contraception and to abortion.

The “what would I do if I were in charge” question is a bit moot when it comes to how I would prosecute the IUD-happy doctor. The only case that I can make for forced sterilization is in cases of an abusive parent, and if I were in charge, no parent whom I knew to be abusive would be alive, much less free to get pregnant again. Am I okay with a vigilante who secretly sterilizes child-abusers? Absolutely. Is that a reliable rule for anything or how policies should be set? No. Does that mean that I am okay with refugees being sterilized? Absolutely not.

The second thing that came to mind was the larger question of population-control. I mean, it should be voluntary. There are organizations, such as Population Action International, that work to bring reproductive health services to developing nations. Now, I support this organization (um, in spirit—not financially, as that is so not in my budget at the moment). Their stated mission is to “ensure that every person has the right and access to sexual and reproductive health, so that humanity and the natural environment can exist in balance with fewer people living in poverty.” This is wonderful. It’s great from a human rights standpoint. It’s great from an environmental standpoint.

That said, organizations such as this one (I am not levying specific accusations, of course) represent an unlikely marriage of three different groups—feminists (and others interested in human rights), environmentalists (healthy families help make a healthy planet), and racists who believe that non-whites (and, realistically, many of those in developing nations are not white) continuing to reproduce in large numbers “endangers the white race.” Guess which one of those groups horrifies me?

I, however, am the sort of person who will take money from bad people if it will do a good thing. Working to combat poverty, disease, world hunger, and suffering? Yes, I will accept money from crazy people for that kind of cause. But I think that education and access to health care, particularly something as crucial as reproductive health care, is the key to making our planet a better place. Ideally, one that is no longer a home to racists.

What do you guys think?



You Might Also Like ...

What the Hell is Wrong With the Duggars?

Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar Announcing 20th Pregnancy

When I heard that Michelle Duggar is, in fact, pregnant with what will be her 20th child, my initial reaction was, “What the hell?”

I don’t suspect I’m in the minority.

The gist of the shock and concern seems to be based around the dangerously premature birth of the youngest Duggar, Josie, who was born at a shocking 1 pound, 6 ounces.  Michelle Duggar’s pregnancy with Josie was shortened by her diagnosis of preeclampsia, a condition identified when she was initially hospitalized for gallstones.

Josie spent four months in the hospital after her December 2010 birth, and had to return shortly after being released because of vital sign concerns.  She didn’t, for all intents and purposes, get to go home from the hospital until she was six months old.

The idea of a baby having to spend her first six months of life in the hospital is tragic, as is the notion that nineteen kids were almost certainly getting a degree of shafting from parents obviously concerned about ..

Continue reading



You Might Also Like ...

Crisis Pregnancy Centers On the Radar in San Francisco

Photo of Pregnancy Test
It’s always sunny in San Francisco!

Now, I’m not being as flip about the significance of the abortion debate, I’m really not.  If you’re anti-choice, that’s your prerogative, and I totally respect that.  To you, in fact, the news out of Frisco is probably not something to be happy about.

Still, in times of such bizarre political upheaval, it’s kind of refreshing to see a law … well, you know, upheld.  The city’s Board of Supervisors passed a 10-1 reaffirmation last week on a proposal that “would bar pregnancy crisis centers from engaging in false or misleading advertising practices.”

In other words, crisis pregnancy centers will be legally required to put their cards on the table in terms of the degree of services they provide.

From SF Gate:

The legislation targets centers that oppose abortion, and the idea is to assure that women with unplanned pregnancies don’t seek counseling there with the expectation that they’ll be provided a …

Continue reading



You Might Also Like ...

The Natalie Portman “Motherhood-gate” Scandal: Should We Laugh or Cry?

photo of natalie portman baby bump pictures photos

Written and submitted by Zelda Lily Guest Writer Rabbi Moshe Averick

I must admit that I’m behind the curve on this one. Until I just saw Sarah Wildman’s article in the Forward, not only was I unaware that pregnant actress Natalie Portman had kicked up a cloud of dust with her Oscar acceptance speech, I also had no idea that she had even won an Oscar, and in fact was blissfully unaware that the Oscar presentations had taken place at all! (I must confess that these days, if given the choice between sitting through the entire Oscar Awards ceremony or committing seppuku with a samurai dagger, I would have to consider my options very carefully.)

What caused the entire ruckus? Appearing luxuriously fecund as she mounted the stage to accept her best-actress award, (“her swollen belly wrapped in luxe layers of Mulberry colored silk”), Ms. Portman publicly thanked her fiancée for giving her “the most important role in her life” (i.e., motherhood). In some feminist circles, however, this seemingly innocent remark bordered on the blasphemous. On writer queried: “But is motherhood really a greater role than being secretary of state or a justice on the supreme court?”

Authoress Lizzie Skurnick, twittered her own classless and vulgar comment: “Like, my garbage man can give you your greatest role in life too, lady.” (Perhaps Lizzie was simply bitter due to the fact that Natalie Portman – aglow with feminine radiance – was basking in wealth, fame, accomplishment, and beauty, while she was stuck trading sexual favors with city workers to ensure efficient trash collection.)

Ms. Wildman’s article, while ostensibly an analysis of the debate …

Continue reading



You Might Also Like ...