1. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    19 Jun '12 21:33
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The most important thing is simply not having more children than you can afford to look after (either financially or in terms of time and effort). Its amazing how much of a difference to both the parents and the children having fewer children can have. Lower birth rates is one of the best ways to improve the economy, education levels, health etc in third ...[text shortened]... ter off before they start having less children (unless you enforce it by law as China has done).
    Perhaps being taught at school all the work needed and cost of bringing up a child (in detail)
    (As well as good sex education detailing good birth control and STD avoidance) might
    make people think twice before having kids at such a young age without thinking it through?
  2. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    24 Jun '12 04:361 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Perhaps being taught at school all the work needed and cost of bringing up a child (in detail)
    (As well as good sex education detailing good birth control and STD avoidance) might
    make people think twice before having kids at such a young age without thinking it through?
    The ethos of your words is all with good intent. However, on the practical level, especially regarding young parenting, this is exploited primarily by the youth of '1st' world countries.
    The social service systems in most first word countries are set in a way that youngsters without work, who bear children, become entitled to free accomodation, social payouts and various benefits which makes life simple and handed on a plate to them. They are 'quite able' to go it alone, financially.

    On the other hand, in third world countries there are no such social care systems, especially referencing my experience in Thailand. Young girls giving birth, and even early to mid 20's, are able to hand their children to grandparents for upbringing as is 'the norm', and the children have a better all rounded upbringing compared to single or young unmarried unstable parents in the western hemispheres.

    So in the west they jump on the band wagon of early birth to claim a right to social housing and benefits, and in the east it's easy to pass unpringing responsibility to elders in the family.

    I don't think sex education would deter from either of those benefits, with regard to youngsters taking a greater stance on planning a family adequately and with thought.

    -m. 😉

    Edit: And apologies, as we've wandered quite far off topic, or I have.. 😳
  3. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    24 Jun '12 07:23
    And interstingly enough, 5 hours later, I just discovered this move by the PM of Britain:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163773/Cameron-axe-housing-benefits-feckless-25s-declares-war-welfare-culture.html?ICO=most_read_module

    Way to go! 🙂 🙂

    -m. (or not???)
  4. Joined
    24 Mar '12
    Moves
    13846
    24 Jun '12 23:00
    Our politicians have learnt to walk and talk but their brains have not yet developed to the stage where they can think rationally.

    This will no doubt be yet another policy that is scrapped before birth! 😉
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree