Should any who have beliefs on the political left should read my blog, I have a few questions that you may be able to answer. Actually, as I am asking about some beliefs those on the right share, perhaps I can ask them as well.

First, the question almost solely for those on the left, and one I asked before, if we are in such dire economic straits, and we need every dollar to help our economy, how do you justify adding the cost of providing overseas abortions? Is that not simply sending our money overseas? It isn't as if those receiving the money will be buying American goods, perhaps a few pharmaceuticals (though the Germans and Swiss provide those as well), but I doubt most overseas abortion providers import all their medical equipment from the US. So exactly how does this additional expenditure with no positive economic impact fit into the Obama "vision"? (Except for gaining him points with his base and providing a bonus for abortion groups which operate overseas.)

Second, and this one is for liberals and conservatives who support this sort of thing, why do we support any sort of "family planning" overseas at all? First of all, is it not arrogant of us to think we know better than foreigners how many children they should have, and then pay people to go overseas to convince them to have fewer children? I know the ZPG crowd believe foreigners, especially in third world nations, are simply too ignorant to know how many children they "should" have, but isn't that a bit elitist of them? Or even racist, as much of our activity seems centered on keeping Africans and Central and South Americans from breeding? Just imagine if another nation insisted on coming into the US in an effort to reduce our birth rate. What would our reaction be? Then why do we think we have the right to do this to other nations?

Third, does this not bother anyone? Whether or not one agrees there should be health care aid to foreign nations (and I come down on the side opposed), what is the possible justification for family planning for foreigners? I can see arguing we should help save their lives. I don't agree, but I can see the argument as a viable one, but the only argument for this family planning is the tired old environmentalist story of "too many people", sometimes supplemented by the Cold War paranoia that claimed "overpopulated" countries are inherently unstable and prone to revolution which favored communism. However, I think a bit of experience, say examining  "overpopulated" Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, and comparing them to the relatively underpopulated Bolivia, Zimbabwe and Algeria, would show that this paranoia is unfounded. And so we are left only with the claim there are "too many people" on Earth.

So, my question is, if we really believe this, why do we think the reduction in human population must come from overseas? Are we saying Americans can breed as they wish, but Africans cannot? If we have to cut population, it should come from Central America? Does that not strike anyone as an argument sure to alienate other nations? And one quite inconsistent with those who claim to respect other cultures and to desire "world approval"?

All of which makes me ask, why not, instead of extending foreign aid to include abortions, aren't we removing all of this "family planning" nonsense from our foreign aid plans? I would go farther myself, and question foreign aid other than military assistance to allies, but I know most won't go that far. Still, doesn't the combination of lack of justification and immense cost in a time of economic trouble suggest that this is a program ripe for cutting?

POSTSCRIPT

I am very reluctant to offer many types of "emergency" foreign aid as well. Not because I am heartless, but because often it does little good. For example, the Ethiopian famine of the 80's was not natural, but the result of planned political starvation, and most of the food sent by well meaning people was either stolen, or sat on the docks as the government was not happy to have food going to people it wanted removed. Even in those rare times when it could be sent, the lack of infrastructure often meant it would not reach its destination. And this is hardly unique. Most modern famines, from Stalin's genocidal famine in the Ukraine to the starvation in Somalia, are the result of either horrible government policies, intentional starvation, or absolute chaos. None of those will be resolved by foreign aid. And in some cases (eg. North Korea), our aid may serve to prop up a government that should be allowed to collapse.

Of course, as I believe government is simply a tool to protect individual rights and settle disputes peacefully, I am inclined to oppose any "aid", foreign or domestic. But I also recognize that we will be a long time reaching that ideal. So in the interim I have to try to define what is the least harmful version of foreign aid, a I doubt we will eliminate all foreign aid any time soon.

POSTSCRIPT II

Some will question why my philosophy allows military aid to allies. In that case I accept it even in an ideal government, as strong allies aid in defense, which is a function of government. Some may follow a more Paul-ish isolationist line, but I have to admit the reality that we cannot stand alone in the world as easily as we can stand with allies. As the oceans no longer present an impenetrable barrier (and didn't even when we thought they did, as the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 prove), we need to have overseas bases, assistance in intelligence gathering, and friendly nations to providing staging areas and supply routes should we have to fight overseas. So, that being the case, providing aid to our allies so as to make them effective when we need them seem a sensible military precaution.