The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Feminism’s African Abortion Agenda

Posted on | May 25, 2018 | 1 Comment

 

If any white man were to say, “Women in Nigeria are having too many babies,” he could expect to be accused of racism. On the other hand, if you were to express concern that the high fertility rate in Nigeria (5.5 lifetime births per woman) is a major obstacle to “sustainable development,” you could expect to be called an expert:

Health watchers say although Nigeria has made bold efforts to achieve rapid economic development over the past four decades, among other factors, rapid population growth has affected the quality of life and made achievement of socio-economic development goals difficult.
While launching the roadmap on harnessing demographic dividend in the youth population, the Vice President, Prof Yemi Osinbajo, expressed worry about the Nigeria’s fertility rate, saying with the youthful age structure of about half of the population under 35 years, the implication of such demographic realities for the country’s development may have consequences too grave to be ignored.
Experts estimate that the window of opportunity for demographic dividend occurs when the age of the young population and the older population is between 26 and 41 years.
Findings show that countries with higher fertility rate are unlikely to achieve desired levels of development across multiple sectors. But with a change in maturing age structure opens a window of opportunity across four sectors — health, education, economic and political.
In a research carried out by Dr Richard Cincotta, a political demographer associated with Stimson Center and Wilson Center in Washington DC on how Age Structure Change Can Benefit Development with statistical analysis using data from over 100 countries for a period of over four decades, it was found that countries with very youthful populations almost never attain high thresholds of development. Nigeria falls among these countries.
The research specifically found that Nigeria has only 1 percent chance of achieving the Sustainable Development Goal, SDG, target of reducing under-5 mortality to less than 25 deaths per 1,000 live births.
But experts say if the country invests more in reproductive health particularly family planning in areas with poor health indicators, then fertility levels may begin to decline more significantly, and children will be more likely to achieve better basic levels of health.

Far be it from me, of course, to tell Nigerian women that they are having too many babies, but this is just what “experts” are saying with their talk about the need for “family planning” in order to reduce Nigeria’s fertility rate to meet the “Sustainable Development Goal,” and warning of “consequences too grave to be ignored” unless this goal is achieved.

 

It so happens that my wife and I have six children, so that our personal fertility rate is even higher than Nigeria’s. If any expert tried to lecture me that our children are an obstacle to his “Sustainable Development Goal,” I’d tell him to go to hell and to take his goal with him.

Ah, but these cunning Malthusian “experts” have recruited feminists to assist them in their crypto-racist “family planning” projects.

 

You see, it’s about women’s rights and reproductive health:

Melinda Gates announced [in July 2017] at The Global Family Planning Summit in London, that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will increase its funding for family planning by 60%, providing an extra $375 [million] over the next four years. About $250 [million] of this money will be used to fund services for teenagers.
Her move is a welcome initiative following President Donald Trump’s reinstatement earlier this year of the ‘the global gag rule’ which prohibits U.S. funding to international NGOs if they advise on or provide abortion services as part of their wider family planning and contraception services. In May this year, Trump also decided not allocate any funding for international family planning in his proposed budget.
At the summit in London, Gates spoke openly of the recent moves by the US: ‘This is a difficult political climate for family planning,’ she said. ‘I’m deeply troubled, as I’m sure you are, by the Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts.’ . . .
[C]utting these funds will leave a huge hole in the money available. In real terms this means less money to fund family planning services that give women control over when and if they have children. It means huge cuts to basic contraception services for over-populated communities across the world who cannot afford larger families, a lack of abortion services for rape victims of war and abuse, and more women than ever dropping out of education to look after children. . . .
[T]he Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is joining forces with the UK’s Department for International Development, and the UN Population Fund to provide modern, voluntary family planning to women in the world’s poorest countries across Africa and Asia. The UK has pledged to provide an average of £225 million per year until 2022.

Billionaires (and their wives) believe women in Nigeria (and other of “the world’s poorest countries across Africa and Asia”) are having too many babies. If they can’t get “family planning” money from American taxpayers, they’ll just throw another $375 million at it. Never mind, of course, what that kind of money might accomplish if it were spent to help poor Americans in, say, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago or St. Louis.

No, no — “We must stop those Nigerians from having so many babies,” is the essence of Mrs. Gates’s thinking. She is “deeply troubled” about the babies who won’t get aborted because of President Trump’s policies. Population-control fanatics like Mrs. Gates think of themselves as humanitarian philanthropists, even though the policies they advocate would more accurately be described as anti-human and misanthropic.

P.J. O’Rourke once described the mentality of the “overpopulation” crisis types as “Way Too Many of You, Just Enough of Me”:

Going around the poor parts of the world shoving birth-control pills down people’s throats, hustling them into abortion clinics, and giving them prizes for getting sterilized is to assume that those people don’t want babies as much as we do, that they won’t like those babies as well as we like ours, and that little brown and yellow babies aren’t as good as the adorable, pink rich kind. . . .
Fretting about over-population is a perfectly guilt-free — indeed, sanctimonious — way for “progressives” to be racists.

Defenders of the “Global Family Planning” agenda would, no doubt, claim that they are only trying to improve the lives of Africans by spending money to make sure there are fewer African lives to improve: “Abort your babies, because the experts say it’s good for you!”

You’ll excuse my skepticism toward Mrs. Gates’ allegedly feminist concern for the “reproductive health” of African women, but I’m a white man, and if I endorsed this agenda, I might be accused of racism.



 

 

Comments