|Reviews for AntiFamily Planning|
| No Trust chapter 1 . 3/17/2006
Aw, those poor babykillers all got laid off! What ever will they do?
Why should westerners even be funding 'family planning' in third world countries in the first place? It's not like brown people are all so stupid that they have never heard of abortion. Abortion is at least as old as the human race.
And the germ theory of AIDS is nonsense. The reason lots of Africans have HIV/AIDS is poor sanitation and filthy drinking water. That'll fuck up you up real fast.
| Kelpylion chapter 1 . 3/17/2006
Incredibly well-written and coherent, and very rhetorically impressive. Haven't seen something political on Fictionpress that was this good fr a while. Thought-provoking, too, so here's some thoughts...It's a long-standing U.S. policy to coercively establish certain policies in other countries by withholding funds that the countries need. I don't really agree with that, in general, but think it's justified in the case of obvious human rights issues. You clearly don't think of abortion as a human rights issue for the child, but that's a kind of contentious point to bring up, even if it's significant. Anyway, you argue that this is a violation of free speech, notably pointing out the poor condition of clinics in Zambia. But this presupposes that Zambian clinics have a right to U.S. taxpayer funds, and are being denied something that is rightfully theirs. I'm not saying that they don't, but I'm not sure you were aware of what you were saying. This means that if the U.S. decides to give food to India but not to North Korea, it's a violation of the dictatorship's First Amendment right to promote laboratory testing on human prisoners. Or, extending it further, 'liberating' Iraq but not 'liberating' every other dictatorship is a violation of those peoples' rights to self-determination and democracy. OK, I'm being intentionally naive, but I thought that bit of reasoning was a little bit off. How far are you willing to extend it, though?
I think what your argument is missing is a clear understanding of your opponent's viewpoint: stopping an abortion is saving a life. I know you don't agree with this, but bear with me. The Bush administration is not run by conservative Catholics; it is not going to refuse to help distribute birth control in poor countries, much of which would be used by */married people/*. Regulating sexuality would mean decreeing that women would have to prove that they were married before they could get any help, or such. You say 'There doesn't seem to be any positive effects of this rule,' ignoring that your opponent believes that he is saving babies. The question you might possibly ask is "Why does he think that the fetus is a baby and how important is its life relative to its mother's?" But of course, that wouldn't make such a good rhetorical statement. Interesting read.