Posted under Immigration & Interventionism & Political Correctness
Regarding the current debate about Haiti (here, here, and here), I would like to add a few comments.
Almost all the current “solutions” to the problem in Haiti result in (1) the long-term occupation of the country, (2) a Camp of the Saints mass immigration of Haitians into the U.S., or most often (3) both 1 and 2. These “solutions,” however, largely address the symptoms, not the cause, of the problem.
From every report I’ve read, most of the problems in contemporary Haiti revolve around the fact that Haiti is overpopulated. There are too many people and too few resources. In a state of nature, this imbalance would quickly correct itself. But years of foreign aid to Haiti have allowed this imbalance to grow. Haitians continue to have children but possess not the resources to care for them. (And now they are asking us to adopt the children for whom they are unable to provide?) If we continue to give aid, this situation will only worsen.
What to do? As I see it, there are only two realistic options that actually address the cause of the problem:
(1) Do nothing for Haiti (no aid, no occupation, nothing), allow Haitians to fend for themselves, and allow nature to take its course. To protect ourselves, we should patrol the coasts of Florida so that Haitians are unable to invade the U.S.
or
(2) Give the Haitians some aid but have strings attached to it. Charity is optional, and it often comes with stipulations. They need not take it, nor must we give it. But if they are to accept foreign aid, make it a condition that the practice of birth control (Depo Provera, IUDs, vasectomies, etc.) becomes widespread and mandatory across the country. Clearly, they are unable to care for the children they already have. Also stipulated by the aid, Haitians should be prohibited from immigrating to the U.S., and those here should return to Haiti.
Although some religious conservatives may find objections to option #2, I ask, do they prefer option #1? Or what better solution do they offer?
Bede on 28 Jan 2010 at 5:43 pm #
Regarding the birth control option, Donald A. Collins’ “Haiti—The Ultimate Symbol Of Planet Earth’s Headlong Plunge To Disaster” is necessary reading.
Sean Scallon on 28 Jan 2010 at 7:14 pm #
Well, if we’re going to start mandating birth control to every country we conquer we’d better quit suspending funds to the UN’s Mexico City Conference every time a Republican becomes president (which is then reversed every time a Democrat becomes president).
Filmer on 28 Jan 2010 at 7:18 pm #
I am a Protestant so I don’t object to birth control per se as Catholics do, but I do think that Catholics are right that birth control and the abortion issue can not be disentangled. It is the wide spread availability of birth control that allowed people to believe that sex could somehow be a consequence free form of recreation. Acceptance of abortion is clearly aided by this mindset. By this logic abortion must be available to deal with the consequences of “unplanned” pregnancies, meaning pregnancies that happened as the normal consequence of the procreative act that was being engaged in for recreation without the intent to procreate. People have always attempted to have sex without conceiving, but the widespread notion that pregnancy isn’t at least a “risk” you take from sex is a consequence of the widespread availability of birth control and its results have been devastating – the sexual revolution, rampant promiscuity, chastity before marriage as a rarity, etc.
As to the methods, both the IUD and Depo Provera are potential abortifacients; the IUD is likely primarily an abortifacient. The IUD interferes with sperm travel, but it also makes the uterine environment inhospitable for implantation of a FERTILIZED EGG. The second method is thought to be the primary one, so if so the IUD is primarily an abortifacient. Depo Provera and all hormonal methods of birth control (but worse for methods that rely primarily of progesterone rather than estrogen) work in three ways. They inhibit ovulation, thicken cervical mucus thus making it harder fro the sperm to reach the egg, and making the uterus less hospitable to implantation of a FERTILIZED EGG. (No one knows for sure which method is primary. High estrogen methods are though more likely to rely primarily on inhibiting ovulation. High progesterone methods are thought to rely more heavily on the second two.)
For this reason I would object very strongly to any attempt to force the use of potentially abortifacient methods of birth control. As well, pro-lifers who believe life begins at conception should not use the IUD or hormonal methods of birth control.
Bede on 28 Jan 2010 at 7:23 pm #
Sean, I did not say “mandate” birth control. I said make it a stipulation for foreign aid (which in itself is a gift). The two are not the same.
Filmer, then what do you plan to do about the overpopulation of Haiti? Option 1? That’s fine by me – and it’s probably the truly conservative option.
Bede on 28 Jan 2010 at 8:21 pm #
Sean,
Think of it this way. Say I have $5 in my pocket. I am willing to give it to you as a gift on the condition that you also eat the sugar cube in my lunchbox. Are you forced to eat the sugar cube? No, it’s only conditional upon a gift.
Filmer,
Just curious, from a medical ethics perspective then, what forms of birth control would you find acceptable?
Filmer on 28 Jan 2010 at 10:07 pm #
I am very conflicted about birth control. I hesitate to condemn it outright, because there is no specific verse in the Bible that prohibits it, but I lean toward the Catholic position that a Christian ethical case can be made against it despite there not being a specific verse. This was the Protestant position as well until the Anglican Church endorsed birth control in 1930.
A specific pro-life case can be made against the IUD and all hormonal forms of birth control (the pill, the “mini pill,” Depo Provera, implants, morning after pill, rings, patch) because they potentially allow fertilization but prevent implantation. No abortion argument could be made against sterilization (vasectomy, tubal ligation,) barrier methods (condoms, diaphragms) and various other methods like spermicides, withdrawal, or rhythm.
Of the non-abortifacient methods I would think the Catholicesque case would be strongest against permanent sterilization, because the others could at least be justified on the grounds of timing whereas permanent methods means any sex beyond that point could never be for procreative purposes.
Bruce on 29 Jan 2010 at 12:07 am #
“This was the Protestant position as well until the Anglican Church endorsed birth control in 1930.”
I wouldn’t say they endorsed it. Lambeth 1930 wasn’t as persmissive as is commonly believed.
http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/01/contraception-second-in-series.html
Filmer on 29 Jan 2010 at 12:35 am #
Thanks Bruce. That is an excellent article.
Patrick Hall on 29 Jan 2010 at 5:17 am #
I suppose none of you have an issue with the depopulation of Germany, considering they were overcrowded, eh?
Liberals, every last one of you.
Go to Hell.
You’re going there anyway.
Bede on 29 Jan 2010 at 6:28 am #
I know the birth control thing is a touchy subject. I’ve been reading recently on Third World population projections, which is frightening stuff to read.
When you look at the numbers (here, here, and here) and realize that Earth has finite resources, some rather scary scenarios begin to run through your mind.
Our present course – giving aid to the Third World so they can have unlimited children for whom they cannot provide (and for whom the West ends up providing either indirectly through more aid or directly through adoptions) – is unsustainable in the long term. Does anyone have any better ideas?
Bede on 29 Jan 2010 at 6:47 am #
Paul Shirley, professional basketball player and contributor to ESPN, decided to tell the truth in his blog about the Haitian aid scams and why Haiti is in the mess it is in.. Guess what? He was just fired. (His blog entry now has over 1,600 comments.)
Weaver on 29 Jan 2010 at 8:34 am #
What’s the conservative answer to Haiti, to encourage starvation?
My take: I primarily don’t want these foreigners in the US. The US is already on the verge of chaos…
Weaver on 29 Jan 2010 at 9:37 am #
R. E. Lee:
Bede on 29 Jan 2010 at 7:04 pm #
I’m not saying that we should interfere. I am not recommending that we should in fact do anything. Rather, I think we should do nothing. I only recommended that if we continue to give them foreign aid – which in part has led to this disaster – certain stipulations should be tied to it.
Weaver on 29 Jan 2010 at 7:24 pm #
For what it’s worth Bede, I’ve found your comments very reasonable.
I intended both most recent comments in reply to Mr. Hall. I’m not sure what he wants to do with Haiti, and it gave me an excuse to cite the General.
JW on 29 Jan 2010 at 8:46 pm #
The main problem with Haiti isn’t overpopulation. As I mentioned in response to your post “The truth about Haiti and Haitians” the main problem is this:
http://www.vdare.com/misc/rushton_african_iq_map.htm
http://www.vdare.com/misc/rushton_african_iq.htm
Attempting to reduce the Haitian population through birth control would be a large effort. And if it would even be successful Haiti’s situation wouldn’t improve in any truly significant way. It would still be extremely backward because you aren’t addressing the main problem. All you could hope to accomplish would be to take a little pressure off of them.
What do I think should be done? I think that we did the right thing by helping Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake by pulling people out of the rubble and offering basic aid. That was the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons and it didn’t cost us anything. In fact, many countries gave some assistance to Haiti after the earthquake. I think even Mexico did as well.
But I definitely don’t think that we should engage in nation-building in Haiti. Nation-building only works if the population of the country that you are trying to help can help themselves. The Haitians can’t do this. They aren’t like the Europeans who were able to recover quickly after the World Wars. Therefore, I think that we should largely leave Haiti alone. We can give them some aid in addition to the initial relief efforts that we offered in order to give them a boost in their struggle to rebuild their country to where it was before the earthquake. However, after that we should just mind our own business and remember that Haitians can only immigrate here if we allow them to.
T on 29 Jan 2010 at 10:51 pm #
Too many let their religion confuse the problem, so they can,t think.
[From editors: Be polite!]
Bede on 30 Jan 2010 at 2:35 am #
JW,
I believe both our positions are compatible. What you write and cite are true, especially regarding the Haitians themselves being the root cause. I said as much in a previous post. Here I’m focusing upon another aspect of the problem. When you throw in years of foreign aid and the Haitians producing children beyond their ability to care for them (they’re now asking us to adopt their children since they cannot provide for them), the problem becomes even worse. I wasn’t necessarily endorsing any policy prescription. I was only suggesting that if we do give them foreign aid (which itself is part of the problem) then it should come with certain stipulations.
roho on 30 Jan 2010 at 5:16 pm #
In 1809 10,000 Haitians/Dominicans went to Cuba, and then traveled as refugees to New Orleans Lousiana, doubling it’s population and French influence. (How’s that working out?)
In the sixties, Cuba’s refugees began the complete transition of Miami and South Florida to a third world, spainish speaking culture of it’s own. (How’s that working out?)
I may donate to the children of the Apalachian Mountains, or some other cause, but I will not be helping any Non English Speaking third world citizens that only want a boat lift to the USA!
When that volcano that looms over Mexico City’s 30 million population goes active, we will have our “Camp of The Saints”.
Just say “NO” now.
JW on 31 Jan 2010 at 6:28 am #
Bede,
I just wanted to give what I believe is the main reason for Haiti’s problems because in your post you said that “most of the problems in contemporary Haiti revolve around the fact that Haiti is overpopulated.” I agree with you that overpopulation is a significant aspect of that country’s (and the rest of the Third World’s) troubles. I just think that overpopulation is more of a contributing factor because, in my view, even without it Haiti and Africa would still pretty much be where they are today. But overpopulation definitely causes a lot of suffering in the Third World and it leads to more immigration into the West.
Also, I agree with you that years of foreign aid have gone a long way towards creating the overpopulation that we currently see in the Third World. That’s definitely one of the reasons why I think that we should significantly reduce the amount of aid that we currently give to those countries. Another reason is of course that aid doesn’t really do any good for people who lack the ability help themselves.
Patroon on 31 Jan 2010 at 6:33 pm #
I’m sorry I haven’t replied as fast as I could.
The Catholic Church’s position on birth control stems from the belief that one views sexual activity for recreation rather procreation, that you debase humanity to the level of animals. This has turned out to be true to a certain extent but where the Church was mistaken was the belief that sexual activity enjoyed a state a grace before the advent of the pill. That certainly was not the case.
That being said birth control should be a private matter of choice, you do so or not do so based on your beliefs and manner. Making birth control available to Haitians to decide whether they should or not is one thing. The problem I have is the word “mandate”. Do we force Haitian women to take birth control? What if they don’t wish to? Do we sterilize them as states once did to poor women? Do you see the kind of Margaet Sanger-like path we may tread down?
So what must be done? I think JW has it right:
” I think that we did the right thing by helping Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake by pulling people out of the rubble and offering basic aid. That was the right thing to do for humanitarian reasons and it didn’t cost us anything. In fact, many countries gave some assistance to Haiti after the earthquake. I think even Mexico did as well. But I definitely don’t think that we should engage in nation-building in Haiti.”
Filmer on 01 Feb 2010 at 1:10 am #
“The Catholic Church’s position on birth control stems from the belief that one views sexual activity for recreation rather procreation, that you debase humanity to the level of animals.”
For what it’s worth, actually most animals “do it” only when the female is fertile. Humans seem to be rather unique in considering sex a pleasurable recreational activity apart from procreation.
Willa Thompson on 07 Feb 2010 at 9:49 pm #
I love the people of Haiti and hope for a better future. However, having children you cannot afford or take care of, is a form of CHILD ABUSE. Yes, birth control should be given to the people of Haiti.
katherine on 27 Apr 2010 at 7:08 pm #
as a certified nurse midwife/women’s health nurse practitioner who JUST returned from volunteering in haiti in various clinics 2 days ago I can tell you there is a tremendous need for health education AND birth control; these noble women, most of whom live on the streets realize that they can not take care of the children they have (or themselves for that matter) right now; they are desperate for pregnancy prevention (and it seems some people on this site are uneducated about the method of action of various birth control method of action; pregnancy prevention versus abortificent) there is tremendous hypertension problem in general so birth control pills with their estrogen might not be optional for many women. And depot would give them time to recover and space their childbearing until a time where they have better resources. As for follow up; again you are misinforned; they WILL come back; it would be very easy after teaching to give the depot shots and have assigned times to come back in 12 weeks to specifically designated clinics. (we had one on the street under a tarp and it was always well attended. There are many professional volunteers who would get behind this effort. Please, unless you have been there and seen first hand what is REALLY happening, do not judge and debate in the abstract that which you don’t know.
Filmer on 27 Apr 2010 at 10:18 pm #
“and it seems some people on this site are uneducated about the method of action of various birth control method of action; pregnancy prevention versus abortificent”
Katerine, I am a doctor, and I am not misinformed. Look in the PDR for any hormonal birth control and they all say pretty much the same thing. They are thought to work in one of three ways. They inhibit ovulation. They thicken cervical mucosa thus hindering sperm travel. And they make the uterine environment inhospitable for implantation. Preventing ovulation is not an abortificent. Preventing sperm travel is not an abortificent. Making the uterus unreceptive to a FERTILIZED egg IS an abortificent. There is no way to know which method is primary. Traditionally it was thought that methods high in estrogen were more likely to prevent ovulation and methods that relied more heavily on progesterone were less reliable at preventing ovulation and hence more likely to rely on the other methods.
The use of the phrase “pregnancy prevention” is verbal slight of hand often used by birth control advocates when faced with these objections. Yes it prevents pregnancy if pregnancy is defined as implantation, but it does not prevent the demise of a fertilized egg so when it works in that manner it is acting as an abortificent.
If you think I am wrong about the science then I would be happy to hear your objections.
Skunk on 30 May 2010 at 10:15 pm #
The Catholic hierarchy managed to justify CASTRATION of choir boys for centuries… maybe that’s a solution all that all of you compassionate conservatives could support?
Katherine has undoubtedly seen first hand the horrific conditions under which these stoic women manage to survive… in a culture still infused with the very corruption, superstitions and patriarchal oppression that they learned from their colonial owners. When you are sleeping under a tarp surrounded by roving bands of predators the last thing you need to worry about is getting pregnant!!
If God gave mankind intelligence, he probably hoped that we would USE it!