Melinda Gates Pledges $560 Million For Contraception
theodp writes "Melinda Gates has pledged $560 million as part of a campaign to expand access to contraception for women. From the article: 'The funding commitment was unveiled on Wednesday at the London Summit on Family Planning alongside pledges totaling $4.3 billion from the British government and leaders from African nations wrestling with the health and social problems brought on by high rates of unplanned pregnancy.'"
Kidding aside.
She and her husband continue to show the best side of capitalism. For those that assume that wealth necessarily leads to avarice, it's delightful to me to see the Gates Foundation making that case more difficult to prove.
To hear her explain the contraception issue:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/415947/june-27-2012/melinda-gates
This just shows the Gates family commitment to helping the world. Great job Melinda, slashdot appreciates your efforts!
... breaking down the religious monopoly on this discussion? Abstinence has been shown to not work, yet it plays to the religious agenda
Many may well consider such acts of philanthropy completely altruistic. Whether you agree with the cause or not, only the most cynical of people would view it as 'marketing' or 'self promotion', and even if it actually is that; so what? The people who will benefit from it wont care - it doesn't matter what the motivation for doing it is, the end result is what is important.
Personally, I think the motivation is truly altruistic and comes from a genuine desire to do good in the world. The point I would make is; anyone 'richer than God' is going to acquire the same philosophy. Why are mega rich people altruistic? Because they can be. When every conceivable want and desire is met, what is left but to be generous to your fellow man?
I for one would welcome the opportunity to do exactly that myself. If only I had some software I could sell to IBM.
You appear to be confusing contraception with abortion. While abortion is an issue still much debated, the ethics of contraception are more-or-less settled now for everyone except the Catholic church and a few other religious groups, and even they don't equate it with murder.
contraception != abortion.
I know, it's very difficult to understand the difference, but trust me, there is one...
> There is a big difference between wanking in the toilet n aborting a baby.
But we arent even talking about a "baby" because in the early weeks of pregnancy, there is no baby. There is a big difference between a bunch of cells that have the potential to grow into a baby and an already grown up baby.
I know that it is hard to draw an arbitrary line, but a line has to be drawn _somewhere_, since pretending that a single fertilized egg is the same as a living, breathing, feeling human baby is ridiculous.
So, if you were in the Gate's position, how would YOU spend your money for the common good?
Give it back to the people I stole it from through monopoly rent and hope that at least some of the additional damage I've done to the economy can still be undone.
Do Economy 101 again and listen carefully on the part about monopolies.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'd spend it on institutional development. Fund anti-bribery agencies, pay for policy development in countries that can't afford it, endow independent newspapers, fund education abroad for future leaders. In short, give countries the tools to create the structures that allow real economic development.
[FUCK BETA]
Here's a secret: there is no God and you have no soul. There is no 'spark of life'. Life doesn't begin at conception. It began billions of years ago and is a continuous process. What makes us value our humanity is our sentience. Fetuses are not sentient. They are a piece of flesh until they gain sentience, at which time our laws consider them to be made of magic meat (sentient matter).
Science will soon allow humans to be created artificially by synthesizing DNA and proteins, cloning processes, etc. There will be no conception, and only a surrogate mother. Effectively, they will be humans made by a machine. But they will gain sentience, and thus they will be human. But until they gain sentience they are just flesh.
This argument is important because people use laws against abortion to oppress women. The rise of women in the workforce and the freedom to live their lives as they feel is due to the accessibility of abortion. Pro-choice is supporting women's rights. Pro-life is considering a woman's breeding capability to be more important than any other aspect of her life.
... very clearly ordered mankind in the Genesis to multiply and populate all the lands.
We've done that. He didn't say "multiply and over-populate all the lands". Can we please put the "contraception is evil" one to rest?
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Building schools so the worlds poor can learn to spell better than your average Anonymous Coward on slashdot is certainly a good example of charity. Giving food less so, except in exceptional circumstances like immediately after a natural (or man-made) disaster, as it is extremely difficult for local farmers to compete with free, so that type of charity just makes poverty worse in the long term. Distributing contraception is better overall for an impoverished community than distributing food.