BF2S Forums 1 Million African Babies Die Every Year in their First Month

usmarine2007 wrote:

What is the debate on this?

You tell me.

usmarine2007 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

What is the debate on this?

You tell me.

No, you tell me, you started this thread.

I know they are African babies, but it's an incredible number.  Perhaps I should send a Pm to all the members instead of posting it.

Btw, why don't you use your other nick.

Wow.  So in an already impoverished, overpopulated, and starved continent, what would be the implications of having their population increase by another million per year?

Despite a projected increase in mortality due to AIDS, we cannot expect a significant slowing down of population growth in Africa. This continent will contribute 1.3 billion people to the world population between 1995 and the middle of the next century - almost twice as much as its current total population. Fertility is still so high in Sub-Saharan Africa that it can offset the effect of rising mortality. With an increase of 734 million over the next 30 years Africa's population will more than double.

From http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Pap … /chap1.htm

I don't mean to sound cold and heartless, but in Africa's current situation, more help from bleeding-heart charity groups trying to save every baby without trying to solve Africa's underlying social problems, is only add to the problem.

sergeriver wrote:

There's people against abortion and you are suggesting those babies shouldn't receive the proper help and assistance?  Why?  Because Africa is screwed?

Let's not get off topic...abortion is quite a different issue.

Everyone should be entitled to the same opportunities in life, and it would be wonderful if we could help everyone and that every baby should live.  But once the child is saved, who is going to stick around to keep helping it.  Past it's first year, 5 years, 10 years, to adulthood.  Many countries in Africa are controlled by war-mongers who control the food supply starving their own people.  Right now under communist China, they are able to support their 1.3billion https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa … os/ch.html.  And in India they aren't doing too bad with just over 1 billion https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa … os/in.html.  But in the case of Africa, generally speaking, they don't have a government that can take care of 3/4 of a billion which could double in the next 30 years http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Pap … /chap1.htm.

The problem with helping African babies without first helping Africa is that each baby saved only adds to the problem and will make it that much worse for the next child born.  I'm not saying don't help them, but do it right and help Africa first.  I don't know where anyone would start, but if you're starting with the cute little babies then you aren't really helping.

Point&Shoot wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

There's people against abortion and you are suggesting those babies shouldn't receive the proper help and assistance?  Why?  Because Africa is screwed?

Let's not get off topic...abortion is quite a different issue.

Everyone should be entitled to the same opportunities in life, and it would be wonderful if we could help everyone and that every baby should live.  But once the child is saved, who is going to stick around to keep helping it.  Past it's first year, 5 years, 10 years, to adulthood.  Many countries in Africa are controlled by war-mongers who control the food supply starving their own people.  Right now under communist China, they are able to support their 1.3billion https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa … os/ch.html.  And in India they aren't doing too bad with just over 1 billion https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa … os/in.html.  But in the case of Africa, generally speaking, they don't have a government that can take care of 3/4 of a billion which could double in the next 30 years http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Pap … /chap1.htm.

The problem with helping African babies without first helping Africa is that each baby saved only adds to the problem and will make it that much worse for the next child born.  I'm not saying don't help them, but do it right and help Africa first.  I don't know where anyone would start, but if you're starting with the cute little babies then you aren't really helping.

Now we agree a bit more.  Africa needs to fix a lot of problems.  The poverty and starvation are consequences of corrupted governments.  Helping Africa means having a UN that helps its goals, removing those governments.  This is not the case.  Let's help Africa.  There is people like Bill Clinton who is doing an excellent job fighting poverty and starvation in Africa.  Let's give the man some money.  If 10 million people in all the world give 50 bucks a year that would make 500 million, not much, but it's something at least.  And this organization don't give the money to corrupted politicians, they give the money to the persons who really need it.

Bertster7 wrote:

Point&Shoot wrote:

Wow.  So in an already impoverished, overpopulated, and starved continent, what would be the implications of having their population increase by another million per year?

Despite a projected increase in mortality due to AIDS, we cannot expect a significant slowing down of population growth in Africa. This continent will contribute 1.3 billion people to the world population between 1995 and the middle of the next century - almost twice as much as its current total population. Fertility is still so high in Sub-Saharan Africa that it can offset the effect of rising mortality. With an increase of 734 million over the next 30 years Africa's population will more than double.

From http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Pap … /chap1.htm

I don't mean to sound cold and heartless, but in Africa's current situation, more help from bleeding-heart charity groups trying to save every baby without trying to solve Africa's underlying social problems, is only add to the problem.

I hate to say it, but I agree. The last thing Africa needs is a bigger population.

But those babies aren't guilty of all the shit that happens in Africa.  By saying this you are saying "let'em die".  I know you don't think that way.  I agree Africa don't need a bigger population, but those babies are born, then someone should deal with this.

Point&Shoot wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

But those babies aren't guilty of all the shit that happens in Africa.  By saying this you are saying "let'em die".  I know you don't think that way.  I agree Africa don't need a bigger population, but those babies are born, then someone should deal with this.

You agree that Africa doesn't need a bigger population, but yet you want to save the babies.  Which is it?  New babies are a bigger population, the babies are only making the problem worse.  Impoverished people, like Africans, usually have a lot of children, to increase the odds of having their children reach adulthood.  If all you have to eat for a single day is a small bowl of rice for the whole family, adding more children makes it worse for the whole family.  It is horrible to even think of these conditions and perhaps I am just deluding myself saying the problem is beyond me to fix.  Logically speaking saving babies without ensuring that the family can provide food, shelter, and protection to that baby is damning that child to perhaps a very short life of starvation, disease, and who knows what other horrors.  If you just let your emotions lead you to save cute little babies, let them also compel you to care about that baby as it grows from childhood to adulthood and then care about it's progeny.

People die every day.  Is it more important to stop them from dying or is it better to help them live.

Both.

Gillenator wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I hate to say it, but I agree. The last thing Africa needs is a bigger population.

But those babies aren't guilty of all the shit that happens in Africa.  By saying this you are saying "let'em die".  I know you don't think that way.  I agree Africa don't need a bigger population, but those babies are born, then someone should deal with this.

And then perhaps only a few months later they starve a horrible death by starvation or diseases, because the isn't even enough food and clean water to support even the parent.
Don't get us wrong, I also don't want those babies to die, but they probably will eventually nevertheless, until something is done in Africa to improve water and food conditions.

Edit, please also see sergeriver's point in the post obove this one.

I think we all agree Africa problems should be solved but meanwhile you can't let them die.  It's only a matter of money and removing corrupted governments.  Here when a baby dies it's on the news.  We are talking about 1 million in a year.

Ottomania wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4EotPDiOaE&mode=user&search=

shame on USA.

What has this to do with Africa?