We May Have The Government, But THEY'VE Got the Money!

yay! hilariously moronic personal attacks win the day again!

no comment on in-vitro clinics, tho

This is just offensive. If this guy genuinely cares about human life then he wouldn't be part of an organisation that actively perpetuates lies about reproduction such as holes in condoms. Grrr. What a cheap move bringing out the Nazi card.

i just like this metaphor. think of all the oxymoronic ways it could work, with the using of an example in an area completely counter or irrelevant to that example

the Bob Dole of used-car salesmen

The Flava Flav of cosmonauts

the Nicole Kidman of 10-pin bowling

the Thurston Moore of international currency speculation

the Luke Skywalker of watermelon transportation

http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/7sudan.JPG
"Oh noes, Planned Parenthood! We're doomed!"

anyway, i was wondering when the wingnut moonbats would begin to open fire on him (the way that they have opened fire on soros). i guess i have my answer.

Whilst I'd happily shoot a pro-lifer in the face as much as the next person, it does still seem like there are sound economic reasons for people in Third World countries to have large families - with no welfare state, the more workers in the family the better - that folks like Gates and Buffett are overlooking in their zeal for Malthusian efficiency.

Gates and Buffett aren't pursuing "Malthusian efficiency" in the Third World. As the article clearly indicates, a very small percentage of the money goes toward that kind of thing. What does, probably comes up in the context of fighting HIV. Most of their money goes toward vaccinations and the like.

Anyway, there is a curve in these matters - more workers in the family may be helpful, but it also means more mouths to feed.

republican party to thread!

kicker is, most of the stuff i've read is that it doesn't work like that. it's more like you only have a certain amount of resources that you have to divide between an ever-growing number of kids.

I'm not saying that it is economically sound to have large families, I'm saying that it often appears that way to the people having them. But I do think that the rise in the relative wealth of working class people in the West doesn't directly correlate to limiting family size. In some ways I think smaller families might've been a response to increasing prosperity as much as a catalyst for it. So I would expect the situation to work out the same in developing countries: raise people's living standards and then they'll begin to worry about birth control.

or, as the Professor puts it:

"Where profits cannot be made — conservation, healthcare for the poor — charity is meant to replace justice and the government should not be involved."

while her influence may have waned, she really was super important in shaping the ideology of the resurgent republican party circa 1960-90.

obv they didn't take the atheism part seriously. but the parts they liked were v influential.