The German example is incomparable to the countries we are discussing.  It’s most likely the case that the policy in Germany did not work because the population is too wealthy to be motivated by a financial incentive. Germany is a developed country with GDP per capita 40,874 US dollar and a “luxury” state welfare system. High education, no financial worries about the life after retirement and the fact that women pursue careers all contribute to a low birth rate. India, on the other hand is a developing country with only GDP per capita 2,941 US dollar and poor state welfare system. Moreover, 42 percent of the Indian population is under the international poverty line. Hence a financial incentive is far more effective in these Asian nations. Unlike in India, Europeans tend to regard children not as investments but as an opportunity for emotional fulfilment. They are unlikely therefore to make a decision about child rearing based on financial reasons.  Furthermore, the sense of community culture that exists in Asian nations (for example the practise of age-old traditions and the lack of cultural westernisation) is not present in Germany and so the example does not take into consideration the strength of culture in effecting decisions.  Lastly, we would argue that you cannot compare a programme which encourages people to have children at all to a programme that encourages people to have female rather than male children. The incentives of the parents are different and the goals of the policies are different.  We would argue that this policy is far better suited to India than it is to Germany and that the comparison does not hold.


Encouraging families to have female children at least gives people a reason to value females at all, even if this is merely a financial value. In the current scenario women are not valuable in any sense. They are valued so little that their lives are ended without a flinch when they are only infants.


Western nations are not as powerful as they would like to think. Their “soft power” cannot propagate norms as effectively as they would like to think. The dominance of Western countries in institutions does not put them in a place of great influence, but rather puts them in a place to be accused of imperialism and exploitation. The West’s preaching to the rest of the world is not seen as constructive or admirable advice by the rest of the world, but rather is viewed as “moral arrogance” and cultural imperialism. It is highly unlikely that most places will change their laws because someone tells them that they do not agree with them, especially when those laws are rooted in a deeper moral or religious obligation.  Moreover, with the hypocritical nature of this particular policy due to countries like the USA not respected homosexual rights either, it is very easy to dismiss this policy as the West simply being hypocritical and telling the developing world to “do as I say, not as I do” and thus is easy to dismiss it as unimportant.


This policy of asylum pressures governments to reform discriminatory laws  This will help change practices of sexuality-discrimination in nations across the world.  One of the most effective ways to engage the international community on swift action to protect certain rights is to make a clear, bold statement against a particular type of behaviour. By acting to not just condemn a certain behaviour, but actively circumvent states’ ability to carry out such a behaviour, the international community sends a message of the unacceptability of such practices.  Moreover, and more importantly, regardless of if the countries are persuaded into agreeing with the international community on the issues of LGBT rights, this action will still change state behaviour. This will happen for two reasons:  Fear of sanction and condemnation. Most countries in the world are heavily interdependent and specifically dependent on the West. Falling out of popularity with Western countries and their populations is a particularly risky situation for most countries. An action such as this signals seriousness of the international community on the issue of sexual orientation equality and can be used as an influential tool to convince leaders to liberalize sexual orientation laws.  Loss of internal support. One of the biggest losses a leader can have in terms of democratic support and the avoidance of violent unrest is being seen as impotent and weak. When the international community effectively sets up a system of immunity to your country’s laws and is more powerful is protecting people and helping people avoid the laws of your country than you are in implementing them, you lose face and integrity in the eyes of your constituents. This can make leaders look weak and incapable of administering justice and fulfilling the needs of society. Furthermore, it makes leaders seem weak and subservient to the rest of the world, removing perceived legitimacy. This loss of legitimacy and support is a major consideration for state leaders. As such, a declaration of an asylum policy for sexual orientation can persuade leaders into changing their anti-homosexuality laws to avoid asylum being granted to people from their country to save face and continue to look strong and decisive as a leader and avoid the damage such a policy would do to their rhetoric of strong leadership.  The best example of this is that due to strong and vocal condemnation of the Bahati Bill in Uganda which would have imposed the death penalty for the crime of homosexuality, the Cabinet Committee rejected the bill [1] .  Therefore, this policy is instrumental in changing state behaviour towards sexual orientation and making the first steps towards acceptance and ending discrimination.  [1] Muhumuza, Rodney. "Uganda: Cabinet Committee Rejects Bahati Bill." allAfrica.com 08 May 2010.


As explained in counterargument two, it is highly unlikely that countries will craft policy based on the preaching of the West.  Moreover, it becomes increasingly unlikely that countries will be receptive to discussions on liberalization of their policies on sexual orientation when the West outright condemns their views as immoral and abhorrent and takes active steps to stop them from enforcing what they see as their moral laws on their populations.


The LGBT community fulfills the basic principles and purposes of asylum  The LGBT community fulfills the most basic principles and purposes of the concept of asylum.  Asylum was created as a direct protection of Article 14 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) 1948 [1] which states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” [2] This article was created in order to protect the third article of the declaration “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” [3] This concept of asylum was created to develop a separate category of migration that would allow its applicants to breach normal immigration protocol and application procedures [4] on the basis that these people were in immediate danger and that without creating a specific bypass for them, they would endure great harm or death. The point of asylum as a specific and emergency measure and, indeed a moral necessity, was two-fold:  1) The immediate nature of the threat/danger to their person  2) That this threat was persecutory in nature  What is important to note is that “persecution” is fundamentally different than prosecution. The difference lay in the acceptability and justice of the punishment someone may or will endure. Persecution is a term used for a punishment that is unjust or morally abhorrent. Asylum has emerged as a category of protection we grant to people who we believe that we are morally obligated to help, because if we do not, they will receive a punishment they do not deserve and will severely harmed for something they deserve no harm for.  We, the proposition, believe that both of these criteria are filled by those fleeing persecution for sexual orientation and thus we are morally-obligated to grant them asylum. First, it is clear that they are facing immediate danger. Whether it is death penalties in places like Uganda [5] or vigilante justice against homosexuals such as the murder of David Kato [6] . In places like Uganda, local tabloids often publishes “Gay Lists” of individuals they believe are gay so that the community can track them down and kill them for their sexual orientation, which is how and why David Kato was murdered [7] . It is clear that whether by the state or by their neighbour, there is a clear and immediate danger to many LGBT people across the world.  The second criteria of the unacceptability of this persecution is also clear. We as Western Liberal democracies have in recent years become increasingly accepting of the LGBT community with the granting of gay marriage, application of anti-discrimination laws and even allowing of gay-adoption in many countries. The sexual orientation of an individual is in no indicative of one’s worth as a human being in the eyes of the Western Liberal Democracy and can never possible be a death sentence. It is inconceivable for us to consider sexual orientation a reason to not allow a person to raise a child, never mind view it as an acceptable reason for death.  [1] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.  [2] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.  [3] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.  [4] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.  [5] Dougherty, Jill. "U.S. State Department condemns 'odious' Ugandan anti-gay bill." CNN International. 12 May 2011.  [6] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.  [7] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.


There has yet to be an international consensus forged around LGBT rights and state treatment of sexual orientation.  Many countries around the world are not secular Western Liberal Democracies and operate on a completely different moral standard than the West does. Many religions, and in fact state religions, do not recognize homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle and specifically see it as a sin and a crime against the religious authority they uphold. It is not the West’s role to tell the rest of the world what their morality should be.  There is not even consensus amongst Western Liberal Democracies on this issue. The United States of America still does not recognize homosexuals as deserving of equal rights to heterosexuals and many states do not allow gay marriage or gay adoption as a result [1] . The west cannot circumvent the laws of other countries when they themselves do not even hold themselves to the legal and moral standard they would like to impose on others.  [1] Law, Jeffrey R., and Justin H. Phillips. "Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness." American Political Science Review. 103.3 (2009): Print.


This policy of asylum helps manufacture global consensus on the protection of the LGBT community  Global consensus on progressive rights for the LGBT community will be aided through this policy.  One of the most powerful weapons in the international community’s arsenal is the soft power of condemnation. One of the most important things the international community can do is use its weight and influence to advocate protection of vulnerable peoples and promote moral and social causes. The West with its immense wealth and importance in international institutions such as the United Nations have a lot of power when it comes to influencing discriminatory policies in other nations. Granting asylum to people on the basis of sexual orientation sends a clear message to the international community that it is not okay to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation and that the West not only strongly disapproves of this behaviour, but that, more importantly, they will take active steps to counter-act your discriminatory policies. This has immense impact on pressuring governments to change their policies.  What is important to note here is that there is a gradual normative consensus that is manufactured under this system. Through the use of soft power, the policies of nations are slowly but surely moderated and a global consensus is created. Not only can this policy influence current state behaviour, but that the influence and change that creates becomes part of a larger global move towards universal acceptance of the norm and the diffusion of that idea throughout all strata of society.  This is important in two ways:  Creating a discourse centred on a universal consensus against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore making discourse be dominated by agreement with this principle and thus creating a dialogue that creates an accepting atmosphere through disseminating the norm of acceptance throughout the international community and global society.  This is important is forging international legal protections for the rights of the LGBT community. International law arrives from a consensus of opinion around a particular issue and its need to be legislated on. Making sexual orientation grounds for asylum creates the framework that explicitly states that legislative international protection is necessary for these groups. This policy therefore begins that process in and of itself. However, more importantly, the reduction of opposition and trend of nations removing discriminatory laws against sexual orientation consolidates this statement of legislative need and furthers the cause for international protection.  Making sexual orientation a category for asylum not only saves lives, but also sends a strong and influential message that helps craft policy in nations who use discrimination as a tool of oppression against the LGBT community. This begins the foundations of global consensus on equality for all sexual orientations and a lasting solution to the issue of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.


As explained in counterargument two, the rationale behind this form of discrimination is nonnegotiable and absolutist due to its religious/moral nature. Consensus-building will not happen in the near future on this issue and even if the potentiality of social acceptance of the LGBT community was in the not-so-distant future, this does not offer any protection to those in danger now, nor remove our obligation to their protection from discrimination and unjust punishment.


Insofar as asylum exists, there is therefore a situation where the opposition would consider it okay to impede on sovereignty for a purpose of protection of individuals. The question is therefore about not if sovereignty can be infringed upon, but rather if this situation fits the criteria to do so.  The banning of homosexuality is not a legitimate point of view to impose on society through legislation. It is discriminatory to do so as sexual orientation is not a choice, it is a natural occurrence like race, gender, ethnicity etc. An individual has no control over their sexual orientation and therefore any legislation on it is discriminatory and unjust. This means that no one should have to follow that law, and more importantly, should not face punishment for it, as punishment in this situation is simply just the application of discrimination.  This is the “last resort” as the opposition would put it. When the state- the only people in the protection to use coercive force to protect individuals in society from harm and persecution. When the state refuses to protect individuals from vigilantism in society, or, in many cases, are the ones actively endangering them, external intervention is the only feasible protection.


This policy breaks down important inter-governmental dialogue on LGBT rights  This policy damages international discourse and progress in LGBT rights.  This policy makes it very unlikely that governments will be willing or receptive to discussions on liberalization of their LGBT laws and policies. Discourse and compromise only happens when both sides of the debate accept the validity of the other person holding the view that they do. If the West outright rejects the views of other nations as “immoral” or “unacceptable” these nations are unlikely to want to engage with the West on these issues as they feel that their opinions will not be respected or be treated fairly or equally. You effectively remove these countries from the negotiating table when you do this. This can be illustrated by countries deemed “backwards” or “immoral” such as Iran and North Korea, who become more isolationist the more they are categorized as and rejected for being “evil” or “unacceptable.” Construction engagement does not begin with the rejection of the other viewpoint’s right to be on the negotiating table.  Moreover, you create an antagonistic relationship between the West and those nations with anti-homosexual laws that hinders further discussion on the issue. By dealing with LGBT treatment in this manner, you effectively brand all acceptance of homosexuality as “Western”. This makes the concept of acceptance for the LGBT community nearly mutually-exclusive with religiously conservative nations or nations who have a historical and national narrative that dislikes the West and the concept of imperialism.


Asylum is not the best way of dealing with discrimination against LGBT people.  The vast majority of LGBT people who are discriminated or harassed on the grounds of their sexual orientation will never have a chance to claim asylum. Poor people from Africa or India may never be able to afford transport to countries that are more accepting of their lifestyle, and even if they could afford it they may not have the knowledge that they could go elsewhere.  As such any policy of asylum for LGBT people who are being discriminated against is never going to be a good solution. And indeed could even be considered to itself be discriminating against those who will never have the opportunity.  Instead countries who would want to consider sexual orientation grounds for asylum should be putting their energies into preventing the discrimination in the first place. As in the UN Declaration of Human Rights “All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination”, [1] all should mean all.  Pressure could be put on countries where the asylum seekers would be coming from in many ways. Diplomatic pressure could be applied and countries denied access to some international organisation. In the case of countries where aid is given the aid could be stopped unless laws are changed, for example in 2009 the UK gave Uganda £70 million in aid, [2] this money should translate into some leverage. Alternatively if the country does not receive aid it could have some form of sanctions against it or trade ties reduced.  [1] United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations, 1948.  [2] Annie Kelly and Liz Ford, ‘Aid to Uganda: How the UK government is supporting the country’, guardian.co.uk, 30 January 2009.


This policy undermines the grassroots movements that are necessary for full and sustained protection of the LGBT community  Lasting change to anti-homosexual attitudes will only happen from the ground-up. This hinders the ability of governments to engineer more accepting attitudes toward the LGBT community.  Even if you could get countries to discuss their policies and liberalize them through this policy, this will not actually change the reality for the LGBT on the ground. Nations where anti-homosexuality laws are in place have large swathes of support for these laws as they represent and enforce the morality of the vast majority of their populace. Simply removing anti-homosexuality laws does not protect homosexuals in their home countries. Simply not being pursued by the government does not mean the government is willing or able to protect individuals from society. Moreover, it makes it nearly impossible for the government of that country to try to liberalize and engineer a more LGBT-friendly attitude in their country if they have submitted to Western pressures. Populations feel abandoned by their governments when they no longer reflect or uphold their wishes and what they view as their moral obligations. The government loses its credibility on LGBT issues if it abandons its anti-homosexual platform and thus cannot moderate or attempt to liberalize such views in the future. This simply leads to people taking “justice” against homosexuals into their own hands, making danger to homosexuals less centralized, more unpredictable and much less targeted.  A perfect example of this is in Uganda where the government’s “failure” to implement a death penalty for homosexuality led to tabloid papers producing “Gay Lists” that included people suspected of homosexuality [1] . The importance of this is two-fold. First, it shows that vigilante justice will replace the state justice and thus bring no net benefit to the LGBT community. Second, and more importantly, it means that the violence against LGBT individuals is no longer done by a centralized, controlled state authority, which removes all pretence of due-process and most importantly, makes violence against homosexuality become violence against suspicion of homosexuality. Thus, making it an even more dangerous place for everyone who could associate or in any way identify with what are viewed as “common traits” of the LGBT community.  [1] "Gay Rights in Developing Countries: A Well-Locked Closet." The Economist. 27 May 2010.


This policy is an illegitimate breach of national sovereignty  Asylum is a concept reserved for the direst cases of political persecution of individuals. It was created as a last resort protection mechanism for people being unlawfully or unjustly pursued by their home country when no other form of protection will work to guarantee the safety of these individuals. The reason it is such a last resort option is because it is effectively intervening within the sovereignty of a state and removing its monopoly on violence and coercive force within that state and administering a parallel system of justice.  No nation has the right to infringe on the sovereignty of another nation without just cause. The moral viewpoints of a nation and its peoples are not what can be considered ‘just cause.’ It is a religious and moral viewpoint to believe that homosexuality should be prosecuted and it is the obligation of any individual living in a state to abide by the laws of the state that they live in. It is not within the rights of other countries to decide if the domestic laws of another country are in line with their views nor is it legitimate for them to violate sovereignty on this basis.  If an individual wishes to break the laws of their society on moral grounds, they have knowingly and intentionally violated the law. Just as people who think any other law unjust and thus breaks it, the LGBT community is in no way less culpable for the breach of law nor is any state any more justified in allowing them to evade punishment.


International discourse on this issue has not been working.  When society is the one persecuting the LGBT community, the governments have plausible deniability in the matter and thus can skirt their responsibility in negotiations. This means that all talk and “dialogue” is meaningless as the government’s can claim a lack of responsibility or agree to protection for the LGBT community, but then not offer it because they are “unable” to.  Many times discrimination against sexual orientation is a religious one, and when it is not, it is a moral one. These views are not reconcilable with alternative moral claims as they are absolutist forms of thought. They are not negotiable or a matters of opinion; they are simply right. This will never lead to consensus-building through friendly dialogue.  Even if the leaders of these countries have made laws against certain forms of sexual orientation on a calculated political level, it will be because of the religious/moral views of the citizens within their country. This is important because, given the option of disagreeing with an international community that has no power over them or angering their domestic constituents that either keeps them in power through democratic support or the avoidance of violent unrest, leaders will pick the former. Thus, international consensus-building is bound to fail  These people need protection now. Regardless of any international dialogue about the future, real people are in real danger now. The reason asylum was created was to protect individuals in immediate danger when no immediate solution to the persecution is in sight. This is a perfect fit for the criteria of asylum.


Whilst it is important for people to remember the terrible troubles people have surviving in very poor countries, we must also remember that direct sponsorship is perhaps not the best way to help people out of poverty - there are a lot of downsides [7]. Would it not be better to hear of how an entire community was improved rather than just a single child or family? Ultimately you can’t force people to give to charity, and at times like these when even in wealthy countries people have trouble getting enough money it must be expected that charitable giving will drop.


Child sponsorship brings about greater understanding between people from different countries and cultures.  Personal letters, charity reports, photographs and even visits help to build a bridge between the developed and developing world[5]. More and more people are able to talk to each other around the world, and it is important that less fortunate people in poor countries are connected to the rest of us and have the opportunity to communicate with us. Sponsorship creates a personal connection - the children get to learn about their sponsors and the sponsors get to learn how their money helps people. This continued attention to the positive effects of sponsorship is really important to help poorer countries, especially at a time when worldwide economics are in trouble and charities are most at risk from begin forgotten [6].


The problem once with this form of giving is that it only provides for a single child, not an entire community - this is why many organisations refuse to offer single child adoption, and instead spend the money they receive on developing poor places for everyone that lives there [10]. By sponsoring a child rather than giving the money directly to a cause or organisation you add a layer of uncertainty to the process – you can't be sure exactly how your money is being spent, or if it really is being used to help all aspects of life. Some organisations only work through missionaries and churches [11]. Although giving to a single child may produce more tangible and immediate results, the work done by large charity organisations is likely to have more important long term benefits to many more people.


Sponsorship is better than other kinds of charity because it is a long term commitment.  Over the years $30 a month, or perhaps even more, adds up to thousands of dollars’ worth of aid spending - this is different to other forms of charity because the main focus here is on “long-term changes"[2]. Unlike a one-off donation, this method of giving ensures that poor people get support for a long time without costing people too much in one go. It also ensures that people keep giving to these needy causes, and makes people realise that they can afford to make a difference.


The long term nature of sponsorship implies that it does not fix the problems that cause poverty. Instead, many argue it can create dependency[3], meaning that the child and family will come to rely on their sponsor. This may discourage them from using their own efforts to escape poverty. For example, even if leaving their village to find work elsewhere could be best for them, they may stay where they are to keep receiving the sponsorship money and other benefits. By linking a single child to a single wealthy (rich) person it also creates a situation in which it is easy for the child to compare their own lives with those of their sponsors. This could make them unhappy or even jealous [4]. In the end it is still possible to help children through charitable giving, but sponsorship schemes create a more complicated relationship that could sometimes go wrong.


People should not need this kind of “feel good factor” in order to give to charity – it is very selfish. People all over the world need help from richer people, and instead of helping just one they have the ability to help many. By focusing in on one single example, people may also get a very narrow view of life in poorer countries – they may feel that the developing world can't look after itself and as a result won't support very important changes to things like government that could actually help the people more than their sponsorship. The “personal connection” is also sometimes made up by the charity organisations, who translate and edit letters sent between the rich and poor to make sure they do not get too emotionally attached to one another [13].


Sponsorship also contributes to all aspects of life.  This includes drinking water, food, education, medical care, shelter and sanitation - often charitable donations are more specific (they only provide for one of these aspects of life). By putting children at the heart of charity programs it is hoped that a stronger foundation will be made for the future - the young people who are helped today can maintain a better lifestyle in the future [8]. Giving all this to an individual child also produces more tangible results than giving to a vast organisation, whose work is can often over-ambitious and more open to corruption [9].


Sponsorship is a good way of getting people who otherwise wouldn't give to charity to donate their money.  Unlike most other forms of charity, sponsorship creates a direct link between the person giving money and the person receiving it. People are able to see the ways in which their money is helping others, and this makes them feel good about it – as World Vision International says - “You get to see and feel the difference your support makes" [12]. Although this is probably not the best reason for people to give their money to those in need, practically speaking (in the real world) it is one of the most effective (it works very well) in encouraging people to give.


In an ideal world it would be easy to say that charities should not try to change the religions and cultures of poor people, but given the dire nature of the situation for the poorest people in the world, surely we do not have the luxury to argue over what ideas should or should not be given to these people. Is it not better that they survive as Christians rather than die from hunger and disease? Religion provides the incentive many people need to think about giving money to charity. We must also consider that only a minority of organisations seek to change the people they help in this way – there is a lot of choice out there for people who don't want to impose cultural change [21] so this does not work as an argument against the idea of child sponsorship as a whole.


Stories about ridiculous administration costs are not only rare but are often untrue. For example, in the case of one of the largest sponsorship organisations - World Vision - “Of the funds given in 2010, 81.1 per cent went directly into programs that help children, 13.9 per cent went to fundraising services, 5.0 per cent was allocated to administration". Charities are not out to rip people off, their aim is to give money to people who need it most. There are always going to be some administration costs in any organisations, and even if those charities who offer child sponsorships have higher costs than others, the positive long term effects of this giving are far more important. Often it may be a choice between giving a sponsorship and not giving anything at all - helping some people is surely better than helping no-one at all.


We need to address the causes of poverty rather than treat the symptoms (outward signs).  There are better ways to help people. Helping single children, or even villages, treats the symptoms of poverty - it makes life better for a small minority. It does little to address the actual causes of poverty such as war, unclean water, bad government, HIV/AIDS, unfair world trade rules, etc. As these statistics show the problems of poverty and disease are truly massive in scale, and even if many thousands are helped by sponsorship schemes, many millions more are still left with nothing. If we really want to help lift people out of poverty for good, we should give to charities which focus on these bigger development issues - for example Christian Aid believes that “it is better to help whole communities through our partner organisations rather than sponsor individuals" [16]. We should also join campaigns to make rich world governments do more to help the developing world by increasing spending on aid [17], forgiving debt, and making the global trade rules fairer for developing countries.


Sponsorship is often more about the intentions of the donors rather than the needs of poor children.  Some schemes have a clear cultural and religious motive – a desire to give aid in such a way that it will affect and even impose (force) foreign ideas onto a vulnerable (weaker) society. Any organisation that has such a clear overlap between their own ideas of faith [19] and the practical side of helping people is ultimately imposing its ideas onto people without giving them any choice in the matter. Families may even come to think that they have to show belief in order to keep receiving sponsorship. For example, sponsored children may be encouraged to send cards at Christmas, even if they are not Christians. At the end of the day this comes down to a very serious question of choice – many would argue that by offering aid with the intention of turning children into adult Christians [20], organisations like “Compassion” are effectively manipulating charity into part of a conversion campaign.


Sponsorship is an inefficient way of giving to charity.  Sponsoring a child is a costly way to do good. More of the money given is taken up with administration (organising) compared to other ways of helping poor people, and although the cost of this administration varies greatly but often as much as 20% of the money donated does not reach the people who need it, and some of that loss is through high executive salaries. [14] For example, keeping track of each child and family needs time from an aid worker, who has to be paid. Organising and sending letters, photographs, school reports, etc. to the donor takes time and money. Translating letters and reports between both donor and child can be particularly costly. Giving the same amount of money to an aid charity would do much more for poor people.


Many of the organisations that run child sponsorship schemes are dedicated to improving all of these aspects of life – indeed the way in which these schemes focus on the improvement of a specific area or community make it perhaps a more complete way of giving money to the poor. Charities can hardly be expected to incite political change or cure deadly diseases instead of helping those who are sick. More than eight million children around the world are sponsored by Western sponsors [18] - giving this large number of children the basis for a good future and the possibility of them learning enough to get themselves and their future families out of poverty is surely a good enough reason to encourage the sponsoring of children to build for a better future alongside other charity projects.