After disaster relief, what then for Haiti? I heard on MPR that even before the earthquake, some Haitian mothers felt they had to give away their children rather than let them exist in dire poverty. They could not afford to raise them, so, you might ask, why did they have them in the first place?
Given their situation, many would have preferred not to have more children, but without access to modern family planning or education to improve their lives, they were forced to take a chance that the children would have a better life elsewhere. If this is not a time to provide women with education and the ability to manage the size of their own families, I don't know when is.
Many vital resources throughout the world are declining -- including farmland, fresh water, ocean fish stocks, rain forests, fossil fuels and many minerals. But human numbers continue increasing by 200,000 per day. That's births minus deaths.
If as many as 300,000 people lost their lives in this horrific catastrophe -- and I do deeply hope the number is nowhere near this high -- that means that before the sun set the next day, more people inhabited the planet than the day the quake hit.
Under such dire circumstances, is it any wonder that millions are now in crisis, struggling for their very lives? Unless places such as Haiti dramatically reduce their total population to sustainable numbers -- by education and family planning, NOT abortion -- what are the odds that this will continue to occur throughout the world?
BARBARA FRANKLIN, BROOKLYN PARK