Date: Mon, 08 Jul 1996 17:13:26 -0600
From: Lisa Rogers <LROGERS-AT-deq.state.ut.us>
Subject: birth control, was "morals"


In reply to malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki) on 'morals'

>Lisa:  I do think that what a lot
>of us want is to have control over our own reproduction, so we can
>each choose the number of children we have. ...  Some people also
want to have>control over others, which I think is generally done to
serve the>controllers' interests.

malecki: Both true and untrue. Naturally in the industrial countries
the first, if not a reality, at least a general demand for that
right. In India however it is connected to the reality that the
poorer castes usually have one insurance policy of surviving when
older and that is having lots of kids. It is also the case in rural
peasant or farmers communities because it involves family labor (lots
of kids) to till the land. ...

Lisa:  Why would one want control over one's reproduction only in
industrialized societies?  Control does not just mean to have fewer
kids, but like I said, as _many_ as one wants, and at the time and as
far apart from each other as one wants.  So I don't see what in your
post makes my statement partly 'untrue'.
 
>Lisa:
>What living things generally appear to be doing is trying to
>increase the numbers of copies of their own genes in future
>generations, i.e. to serve their own darwinian fitness.

malecki: I am not so sure about that. Is it the sex drive or the
drive to increase 
the numbers that is dominant? 

Lisa: Doesn't one often serve the other?

malecki:... Thus in India it is the 
middleclass who want birth control for themselves (overriding the
Darwin reproduce stuff) for Whatever. On the other hand the lower
castes are forced on to sterilisation campaigns etc. because they
produce children as security. So it gets pretty complicated. Or at
least i think it does..

Lisa: Yes, the rationale offered for targeting the poor for birth
control often includes their higher birth rates.  However, it is not
clear that people with fewer children are necessarily reducing the
number of their descendents.  Instead, it may be that in order to
maintain their middle-class urban lifestyles, they cannot afford to
raise, nanny and educate very many children, there is no payoff for
farm-work, and they may even have retirement accounts.  Also, kids
are more likely to survive, more likely to marry and produce
grandchildren, etc.  So there are many reasons why fewer children may
actually result in more reproduction.  But we can't really tell til
after the fact, and government population adivsors certainly ignore
all this, focussing on the birth rate alone, and ignoring high infant
mortality.  Much of the high birth rates may be just to compensate
for the high mortality.  Many is the poor peasant woman who 'had 10
kids' but sees only a few reach adulthood.

Lisa



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---