[Valpal1]

Actually it makes sense. Because being endlessly pregnant by your abuser is physically and emotionally draining and every baby is another hostage further trapping you in the abusive situation.

So birth control is the first step or strand to untangle in the net that ensnares them. And in the context of charitable aid, it’s better than a “stop beating your wives” poster campaign.

[utahagen]

What you wrote makes sense, but if you saw the video of Melinda Gates giving this speech, I think you'd have a sense of what I found incongruous and offensive. One of the richest women in the world, who happens to be white and American, was smilingly talking about how much she wants to help curb the populations of poor countries (that happen to be black). Now, I don't think Melinda Gates has anything against black people. However, I am baffled by the whole “overpopulation” argument. As the American Enterprise Institute often argues, many countries are poor because they have lousy economies and are run by dictators who get their hands on much of the money from charities that is supposed to go to their countries’ poor populations. Yet, only a few people and organizations, such as the AEI, seem to be interested in encouraging INVESTMENT (in the form of businesses) in these countries. Instead, very rich Americans look at these countries and reason, well if there were fewer people in these countries, fewer people would be miserable. Ok, I guess that's true. Also, I am skeptical that many of the women Gates was talking about are in “abusive” relationships. It frustrates many American that poor — but not starving — Africans who are married would rather have six children than two or three. I think it's easy to toss off “abuser” about men who don't want their wives to use birth control — Melinda Gates was referring to contraceptive implants — which isn't quite fair.