Why do the babies starve first?

Originally posted by Sonya610

I find it utterly shocking that parents could eat first while watching their own children whither away and die before their eyes. That goes against the most basic human standards practiced by the vast majority of cultures.

It actually isnt against "basic human standards." It is just modern standards in industrialized countries. Long, long, ago before Roe v Wade and our current system that subsidizes poor people, it was actually quite common in times of famine not only to let the children starve, but sometimes to take children and old people out into the wilderness and abandon them to the elements in some cultures. It is documented that in Europe (fairly recently historically speaking) children were not infrequently abandoned by poor parents who could not afford to feed them.

In Brazil there are so many street children that human rights groups have cried out against them being shot like wild dogs.

The thing we should be outraged by is that out government is under such pressure by the religious group in this country that we have cut so much funding that would have helped provide family planning (birth control) to third world countries. I guess in some peoples minds it is better to have them be born and then have to die a slow lingering death than have had their parents use birth control. Go figure.

Edit to add; Voxel actually nailed it in terms of evolutionary theory.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Voxel
See there you go projecting from a position of comfort. I very much doubt your mother ever weighted 85 lbs., felt the chronic weakness associated with hunger, and knew she had only weeks to live.

Why is it more civilized to allow two humans to die instead of one?

Uhh…people take risks for their loved ones all the time. Soldiers do it in battle, parents rush into burning buildings to save their kids, grandparents give up kidneys to buy a few more years for their grandchildren. In fact people risk their lives for COMPLETE strangers!

They typically don't say “Sheesh if I risk this we could BOTH end up dead so I am going to sit there and watch my house burn down with my kid inside it”. Starvation is in fact a RISK, they may both starve, they may both survive.

And that is exactly what it is, risking ones life. Putting the wellbeing of another in front of your own well being. Usually the basic standard of caring is for ones own children. Well for those that have standards.

reply to post by BlindWatcher1


I see that you have come back to the thread but instead of answering my question about your previous comments about my first post in the thread you just attacked the opinion of another member.

That is not nice, and whatever reasons you may have behind this behaviour (I am sure you have some reason for this) they should not be mixed with the topic at hand, unless they are related to the topic.

If that is the case you may want to share it with us. Otherwise, I think you should not behave this way, this is just people talking, these people (me included) may behave in a completely different way from their opinions when confronted with the situations that have been talked about in this thread.

PS: Your "quoted" tags are not right, I think you missed one closing tag after the second "quote".

reply to post by Sonya610
Forgive me for my outburst. I apologize to you and you only. I have no use for anyone or anything that speaks of an infant as A useless baby. Have a nice night sonya.

When there is starvation there is disease, there is usually a lack of water, and a lack of clean water. Babys do not have developed immune systems.
Starvation is usually accompanied by an attempt to migrate to a better place. This too strains the child. I believe that any parent would willingly starve to see their child well fed. However if you cannot find enough to maintain an adult, a child with their higher needs, has little chance.

You probably will not like this part but sending things to help is a disservice.

If you are talking about people living a native lifestyle. Then you only expand the number of people beyond the ability of the land to support them. When you stop, they not only die. They die in droves!
If you cannot go into their home land with nothing more than they have, and show them how to live better, then you should not be there to help.

Even if you could choose to provide the needs of one native for life, could you support their four children, the four children of each of those children, and on and on. No you cannot. The native lifestyles survived all of history in balance with nature and often in a decent way. When you change the dynamics you bring only hell in your wake.

MemoryShock: You can make my points minus one million for all I care. Points mean nothing to me. To remove what I wrote and leave ones saying babies are useless and should die as far as I'm concerned makes you just as bad. I cannot believe you would leave such a remark on this site. Do you have no decency at all here at ATS and please don't give me the 1st amendment crap. I'm sure you know what a Nazi is, correct?

Blindwatcher I found his comments to be very offensive too, but more from the perspective that it was insulting to decent, sacrificing mothers. A lot of mothers would gladly starve rather than watch their small children suffer that fate, and that is a very very admirable trait.

Perhaps some people harbor resentments around the concept of of a "good mother" so they like to portray that type of nurturing as stupid.

Originally posted by Cyberbian
When there is starvation there is disease, there is usually a lack of water, and a lack of clean water. Babys do not have developed immune systems.
Starvation is usually accompanied by an attempt to migrate to a better place. This too strains the child. I believe that any parent would willingly starve to see their child well fed. However if you cannot find enough to maintain an adult, a child with their higher needs, has little chance.

In very very extreme cases where people start migrating, that is true. But in many of these countries food shortages are a fairly common problem and they are NOT migrating.

When I say "babies" i mean small toddlers as well. It is customary for the father to eat his fill first, and in some cultures the wife and kids eat out of a "community pot" after the fact. When all of them dive in to scarf up what food remains the toddlers are often not fast enough to get their fair share, so they don't get enough.

This type of slow death happens among families that still have a roof over their heads, it happens slowly over months while the older siblings and adults remain fairly healthy.

And Cyberian pointed out, I do believe it is a product of the modern age. Prior to western influence the populations in those regions were much lower, now they have exploded and when the droughts come they rely on outside food supplies that may or may not arrive.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Sonya610]

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
The thing we should be outraged by is that out government is under such pressure by the religious group in this country that we have cut so much funding that would have helped provide family planning (birth control) to third world countries. I guess in some peoples minds it is better to have them be born and then have to die a slow lingering death than have had their parents use birth control. Go figure.

I agree, birth control should be a major priority in those regions. But on the otherhand I think a lot of them probably would not use it. Look at the countries ravaged by AIDS, and the stories of HIV positive mothers having several babies after they KNOW they have it!

I honestly think the idea of birth control is outside of their realm of thought in many cases, they may know how it works, but the men want the sex and honestly no one is all that upset if they end up birthing babies that will die young. I mean they may not like it, but its not like they will go to any length to PREVENT it, in their minds I guess its just nature.