Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (12669)	4/30/2001 5:51:41 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I said, and you quoted, "The number of children that were born as a direct result of Mother Theresa's statements against birth control is very unlikely to be in the millions." You now mention "carry through with a pregnancy". I made not claim about the number of people that might have been convinced not to have an abortion. I don't know how significant the difference is, but yes: the number of woman convinced not to use birth control would not be exactly equal to the number of children born as a corollary to that. There would be miscarriages and deaths, etc. However, there would also be families with more than one offspring, so I don't think your correction makes an argument affecting the original statement in a significant way. You are making a very fine discrimination so I suppose the evidence that prompted your interjection in the first place is of a precise nature as well. You made it clear that my statement was untrue (in your opinion). Inasmuch as you have provided no evidence with which I can take issue, but have merely made a bold denial of what it was I said--I suppose I must continue to disagree with you. The following numbers suggest to me that many people, whom might otherwise not have been born, WERE born as a result of the influence of MT through herself and her myriad workers in Africa, India, etc. Also, because the mandate of her agency was to address the "poorest of the poor", I am confining my remarks to those whom were both POOR AND influenced by the Agency to not use birth control. Otherwise, perhaps the success of her efforts in this regard have been vastly overestimated and oversold by her apologists. I don't find "millions" over 50 years to be an unreasionable number. People with a high profile often influence the behaviour of millions with a single speech. Winston Churchhill is one of innumerable examples which could be given. You can think of many on your own; many are religious figures. So you may continue to take issue with the numbers, but I must continue to disagree with you. You have made no attempt to disprove my statement, so I have no reason to give your statement any credibility. 2,000,000 people over 50 years = 40,000 people per year. 40,000 divided by 365 days = 110 people per day. None of these 5000 workers were fulfilling this portion of the mandate of MT? Perhaps you are right. Perhaps the claims are bogus or extremely exaggerated. However, I would find it incredible if at least 2-3 million woman (or their husbands) over 50 years were not influenced to either give up, or not to begin birth control, or were denied it when it might have been offered as an alternative--thus resulting in the births of 2000,000 children. One woman alone deciding not to use bc could bring 10 or more children into the world. One man deciding not to use it could cause hundreds to be brought into the world. I wish I knew why you believe that MT's ministry against birth control was so ineffectual. You've taken a rather unique position on the issue. I supose you had some fairly overwhelming evidence. Hopefully you will share it.