Would You Have A Child If...

User45701

Ok i was trying to think where this topic should go but looking at the politics forum probably not the best place for it...
If MOD's want to move or whatever go ahead

Anyway my question is if you growing up had a terrible life, always hungry, dirty living in horrible conditions (i am referring to the way people have to live in 3rd world countries)

If you grew up like that would you have a child? would you bring a child into the world knowing that it will not have a good life and will always be hungry?

I don't think i would but then again its easy enough to say that.

Even so the urge to reproduce is not impossible to resist.

Ok i better be clear here.
I am not saying we should steralise everyone in the 3rd world countries but a large part of the problem is the excessive child births is a drain on what little recorces they have (food/water) and they have many babys because the baby's survival is not certain, but having so many babys beause of fears that they will not suruive is why the population is so high. If they reporuduced less then it would be much easyier for us to help them and fix allot of what is wrong in the world. I dont ever expect that we will convince them to have less babys or anything this is just a poll on Would you bring a child into that world?

No

I think a lot of the problems those in the poorest areas of the world are facing can be traced back to the developed world.

Tak3n

Probs alot of them dont know anything about contraception and i imagine alot of rape goes on.

InFront

No

Of course I would (or, she would). It isn't the couples' fault their country is poor. 9How poor are we talking by the way?) Those people have little enough as it is, denying their right to children would feel very wrong.

cujimmy

As a parent you like to think that your kids will have a better life then you had , so the answer has to be yes

biko

As I see it most of these countries are poor because of exploitation from the "first" world. If we were to stop sucking them dry they'd have a chance to build up their own wealth.
Btw, I'm reluctant to rear a child in this country and so would prob not have one if I lived anywhere else.

Killaqueen!!!

No

As has been said before, they know little about contraception and even if they knew about it, they probably wouldn't have access to it let alone simple food and water. And again, as has been said those problems could be easily traced back to us here in the First World.

But, if I were in those situations I would have a child. Knowing that I'd be bringing it into a horrible world would kill me but is also in the hope of survival for my family - that maybe at least one of my children will survive and somehow have a happy life.

spurious

I Honestly Dont Know

No. If I were to have a child, it would have to be for the child's benefit, not mine. To deliberately have a child knowing I could not take care of it properly would not be something I would do - presuming I had the education and ability to prevent pregnancy.

You don't have to go to the 'Third World' to find people with children that should not be let look after a rock let alone a child.

Pythia

Of course the corrupt governments and continual wars have nothing to do with it.
Africa could do a lot more to help itself, but it doesn't try. A lot of people there seem more interested in fighting wars and the arms trade.

Poor people often have kids to make sure they're looked after in old age.
They should embrace contraception and more modern views on sex. That would help. (ie in some cultures they believe raping a virgin will cure them of Aids).

Exit

I think it comes down to not knowing about, not having access to, or just not willing to use contraception.

Look at Ireland in its poorest days when families were living in rundown cottages or slums. They still went ahead and had 8 or 9 kids even though it was obviously a huge strain on that family's resources.

It's hard for me to say whether I would or wouldn't, because I've never been in a situation like that.

Nightwish

I Honestly Dont Know

Kevin Myers had an article in the Indo last week, about this particular issue. But he said it was irresponsible for those like Bill Gates who give 100's of millions of dollars to fight malaria in Africa, yet have nothing in place for the lives he saves. Each child who either survives malaria, is another hungry mouth to feed. And before people go nuts, these are his opinions, not mine.

InFront

No

Nightwish wrote:

Kevin Myers had an article in the Indo last week, about this particular issue. But he said it was irresponsible for those like Bill Gates who give 100's of millions of dollars to fight malaria in Africa, yet have nothing in place for the lives he saves. Each child who either survives malaria, is another hungry mouth to feed. And before people go nuts, these are his opinions, not mine.

He actually makes a valid point, kind of like the way mortality in Iraq is lower than it would have been thirty years ago, but nobody counts the number of the terribly wounded, amputees, etc. Lower mortality carries with it further serious implications.

Ruu_Old

This is probably better suited to Humanities but I'll leave it here, if you want it moved let me know OP.

Red Hand

People may place greater emphasis on family in the absense of material wealth.

But that is aside the point. If you lived, say, 200 years ago in Ireland as a poor labourer, and you saw how the other half lived (the "quality"), would that stop you from wanting to have children?

There are two issues here. First, there are people in third world countries who want families or large families, and second, there are those that do not want children, yet through culture or whatever "have" to have children. I'm not sure that people would take to contraceptives as easily because of religion ( and yet, religion is often a thing people turn to when they are poor, so its a vicious cycle).

The question is a bit difficult to answer as most of us have not been raised in such an environment, for most of us here are are almost at the level of 19th centuary Irish "quality".

NextSteps

Oh stop being so paternalistic.

Dave!

No, cos then I'd have to feed the child, thus I would have less for myself (and I presumably would be f*cking starving most of the time anyway).

Unless I had planned to eat the child, then no, I would not start a family in those conditions. Not intentionally anyway. I'd have to pull out.

Red Hand

Pythia wrote:

Of course the corrupt governments and continual wars have nothing to do with it.
Africa could do a lot more to help itself, but it doesn't try. A lot of people there seem more interested in fighting wars and the arms trade.

Europe for many centuries could have done the same, but didn't.

Poor people often have kids to make sure they're looked after in old age.
They should embrace contraception and more modern views on sex. That would help. (ie in some cultures they believe raping a virgin will cure them of Aids).

It goes for us First worlders too. Germany, for instance, is trying to encourage people to have more children by giving generous tax breaks to parents, mainly to produce future workers that will subsidise this generation in old age.

Lust4Life

Yes, but the life they live is the only life they know.
So this is actually an unfair question. If we lived there knowing all that we know, then, no, none of us would likely consider such a thing.

The same thing with Mexico. They are considered to be very rich if they have a house filled to the rafters with children - regardless of if they can actually afford to feed and clothe them all.

Different priorities in life. Different beliefs. And hey, maybe it's actually us who ought to simplify our standards and beliefs and they're the ones who are right?

I suppose we'll never know for sure since this is a debate without those who live it available to comment.

Fanny Cradock

Look at population trends and note how births decline with wealth and, obviously enough, rise with poverty. In a poor society (whatever poor means) offspring are seen as a way of providing some sort of security for you in later life.

Capt'n Midnight

Most third world countries have no social security worth talking about and high infant / child mortality. This means you need a few kids to be almost certain one will survive and thrive enough to be able to support you in your old age.

User45701

I Honestly Dont Know

Ruu wrote:

This is probably better suited to Humanities but I'll leave it here, if you want it moved let me know OP.

Id like to leave it here for a few days anyway just to get the votes in when it comes down to just discussion then you might as well movie

Pythia wrote:

(ie in some cultures they believe raping a virgin will cure them of Aids).

I did not know that and that is one of the most wrong things ive ever heard i mean ye people being bombed and killed and murdered and all that ye but raping a virgin if you have aids is pretty bad

I Honestly Dont Know

How many of the women have a choice about it? Particularly if they're married? I hear saying no to a husband is not an option in some places

Black Swan

User45701 wrote:

I am not saying we should steralise everyone in the 3rd world countries but a large part of the problem is the excessive child births is a drain on what little recorces they have (food/water) and they have many babys because the baby's survival is not certain, but having so many babys beause of fears that they will not suruive is why the population is so high. If they reporuduced less then it would be much easyier for us to help them and fix allot of what is wrong in the world. I dont ever expect that we will convince them to have less babys or anything this is just a poll on Would you bring a child into that world?

Is this a troll? If not, is this a view that is simplistic, in that it does not fully appreciate the demographic, political, cultural, economic, social, and psychological complexities of living in the 3rd world?

Exit

Ruu wrote:

This is probably better suited to Humanities but I'll leave it here, if you want it moved let me know OP.

I have to say that I'm liking the recent trend on After Hours of more intelligent discussion. It's certainly better than the usual fare on here like "What does your poo smell like?"

Endurance Man

I Honestly Dont Know

I wouldn't have a child in a first world country tbh, the world is already over-populated and there are thousands of young baby's in need of a home and some loving. The way the teens are producing in this country you're gonna have the same problem as some 3rd world country's in a few years.

AngryBadger

I Honestly Dont Know

I think this question is fairly moot. We're applying "western" principles to a non-western situation. I doubt many people in third world countries give much consideration to the logistical wisdom of bringing another hungry mouth into the world.

In order for someone to consider the merit of any action, they have to be aware of the alternatives to, and consequences of that action. With education we become more aware of our own situation and alternatives to it. For a lot of families in third world countries having children is an integral part of their lives. Aside from the "touchy-feely" value of having a child it's a major logistical imperative since kids look after their parents a lot.

In short, I doubt most third world people ever consider not having children as an option.

And before i get flamed for whatever reason I want to point out two things.

1) Education in my view doesn't simply mean finishing school, going to college and all that. It means broadening yourself through in whatever way possible. For some people that means college, for some it means travel, some people broaden themselves simply by talking to new people as often as they can.

2) Plenty of people in developed countries (read:Ireland) have children when they clearly have no business having children. Seems like a reasonable stretch to say the same thing happens in developing/underdeveloped countries.

DonkeyStyle \o/

I Honestly Dont Know

<lower tone of thread>
Nope, I'd make sure I took her up the batty.
</lower tone of thread>

AngryBadger

I Honestly Dont Know

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

<lower tone of thread>
Nope, I'd make sure I took her up the batty.
</lower tone of thread>

That's some good lowerin boy

InFront

No

But there's no need to tip-toe around this issue, the amount of children that are being born in areas of dire poverty is not helping the situation. And I'm sure the vast majority of people in the third world have never considered not having children, mostly for cultural reasons as opposed to psychology, or religion or anything like that.

Overpopulation simply intensifies the negative impacts of resource maldistribution, there is a greater issue at hand. Of course no single factor is singlehandedly responsible for the World Poverty and it is unrealistic to define overpopulation and poverty only in terms of population growth.

If you get the population down to half, what's to say economic aid or debt relief won't more than halve? But anyway, I'm all for people having less kids.

riskky

No

User45701 wrote:

Ok i was trying to think where this topic should go but looking at the politics forum probably not the best place for it...
If MOD's want to move or whatever go ahead

Anyway my question is if you growing up had a terrible life, always hungry, dirty living in horrible conditions (i am referring to the way people have to live in 3rd world countries)

If you grew up like that would you have a child? would you bring a child into the world knowing that it will not have a good life and will always be hungry?

I don't think i would but then again its easy enough to say that.

Even so the urge to reproduce is not impossible to resist.

Ok i better be clear here.
I am not saying we should steralise everyone in the 3rd world countries but a large part of the problem is the excessive child births is a drain on what little recorces they have (food/water) and they have many babys because the baby's survival is not certain, but having so many babys beause of fears that they will not suruive is why the population is so high. If they reporuduced less then it would be much easyier for us to help them and fix allot of what is wrong in the world. I dont ever expect that we will convince them to have less babys or anything this is just a poll on Would you bring a child into that world?

How the hell are you supposed to know that the baby won't have a good life and would always go hungry? The point is you don't and by the way not every baby born in the 3rd world go hungry and "excessive child births" is not the root of the problem.There are poor countries in Africa with less the population of Ireland

User45701

I Honestly Dont Know

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Is this a troll? If not, is this a view that is simplistic, in that it does not fully appreciate the demographic, political, cultural, economic, social, and psychological complexities of living in the 3rd world?

riskky wrote:

How the hell are you supposed to know that the baby won't have a good life and would always go hungry? The point is you don't and by the way not every baby born in the 3rd world go hungry and "excessive child births" is not the root of the problem.There are poor countries in Africa with less the population of Ireland

Well as i said

User45701 wrote:

My question is if you growing up had a terrible life, always hungry, dirty living in horrible conditions would you bring a child into the world knowing that it will not have a good life and will always be hungry?

Now if you want i will change it to "My question is if you growing up had a terrible life, always hungry, dirty living in horrible conditions would you bring a child into the world knowing that There is a high probability that it will not have a good life and will always be hungry?

This was not ment to be a discussion on what are the causes of poverty sickness hunger in the 3rd world it was for the discussion of reproduction i the 3rd world. There are several reasons why things are bad

Exploitation from the west
Warlords
Over population
Droughts
Famine
Ect.

Endurance Man wrote:

I wouldn't have a child in a first world country tbh, the world is already over-populated and there are thousands of young baby's in need of a home and some loving. The way the teens are producing in this country you're gonna have the same problem as some 3rd world country's in a few years.

Well its not that bad not all of the teens are reproducing at such a young age its mainly primitives although there are some accidents also i am ware of 2 people who decided to have a kid at 18/19 who is preggers now with intention of going on the housing list and getting what they call a "free house"
bollox where is my free house? as long as its that easy to take advantage of our system they will do it but thats not what this discussion is about

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

<lower tone of thread>
Nope, I'd make sure I took her up the batty.
</lower tone of thread>

Nothing like lowering the tone

simu

No

AngryBadger wrote:

I think this question is fairly moot. We're applying "western" principles to a non-western situation. I doubt many people in third world countries give much consideration to the logistical wisdom of bringing another hungry mouth into the world.

I agree. Same as the Irish having huge families despite living on tiny holdings back in pre-famine days. This whole thread strikes me as being a bit "let them eat cake".

seamus

The issue so complex that "stop having children" just really doesn't come into it.

Education is pretty much the key here. Historical evidence shows a direct link between education and birth rates (as well as other things such as women's rights).

In order to make (or even have the desire to make) an informed decision, you need to be educated sufficiently that you can project the consequences of the decision that you make, and you also need to understand the steps leading up to the decision too.

Many people in third world countries are coming from an almost instinctual base level, far below an adult (or even a child) in this country. Literacy in the poorest parts is close to nil, so whether they even draw a link between sex and children is something that's debateable. Without education, the idea of projecting ahead into the future and thinking about the consequences of your actions is just something that tends to not really occur to you. You live for today, and possibly tomorrow, but that's about it.
The very fact that you have to concentrate on staying alive today only hardens this further. We take it for granted that tomorrow and every other day for most of the rest of our life, we will get up out of bed, go downstairs, pour a glass of water, have a bowl of cereal, do some work, have our lunch, do some stuff, have our dinner, relax and go to bed. We have time, means and education to look into the future because today and tomorrow are 99% looked after already.

The only way to improve the situation in third world countries is education. Nothing more. You can throw all the money you want at hunger, poverty and disease, but it will never get any better.
Unforunately it can be a vicious cycle. Low rates of education leads to high levels of crime and violence at a low level. At a higher level it leads to lawlessness, militias and civil violence. At an international level, it leads to war. The people who get into power are only slightly more educated than the populations, but sufficiently so that they know that an uneducated populous is a blind and unquestioning populous. You can shoot, main and rape them and they don't know any better.

Europe was barely a civilised continent in the early 1900's. Before that, much of Europe's cities and towns were largely in a third-world (by our standards) state.

Archeron

No

simu wrote:

This whole thread strikes me as being a bit "let them eat cake".

I agree with this 100%. To be honest, if I lived in those conditions, I would most likely have many children, and most likely for reasons mentioned above such as high infant mortality rates, and someone to look after the family when I am old.
If I lived in one of these poor countries, on what am I supposed to make the comparison that I am doing an injustice by bringing a child into it? Chances are I am not overly familiar with the outside world, so wouldnt be able to make that judgement one way or another and the predominant thought in my mind would be my simple wish to have a family, be that for selfish reasons or not. If a man has only a slice of bread a day to eat, but doesnt know that others have so much more, then he could quite easily be happy to share that slice of bread with others.

Does this mean that people living in the lap of luxury in a mansion in Beverly Hills can look to less well off areas in Dublin and ask the same question of us? Its a matter of perspective, and not many people in wealthy Ireland can place themselves in the position of those who live in abject poverty in order to answer this question, but for my tuppence worth, yes I would bring children into that world quite happily.

User45701

I Honestly Dont Know

simu wrote:

"let them eat cake".

Fantastic quote, its so funny i used to think the whole concept of saying that was one of the funniest things ever when i was younger i haven't thought of that saying in countless years.

Tom Dunne

seamus wrote:

The issue so complex that "stop having children" just really doesn't come into it.

Education is pretty much the key here.
<snip>

I think seamus has hit the nail on the head here. It's not as black and white as we are attempting to make it.

riskky

No

I'll rather be poor,hungry and have a family than be poor,hungry and alone.:)
and probability is simply chance.There is no discounting the chances of the hungry baby becoming well to do in future no matter how slim

Exit

I think we should all take the advice of Michael Jackson:

If you can't feed your baby
then don't have a baby
and don't think maybe
if you can't feed your baby

phantom_lord

They have so many children because they're poor. Their children are their pension, the children work to support the family, and care for the parents when they are too old to do so for themselves.

and they have many babys because the baby's survival is not certain, but having so many babys beause of fears that they will not suruive is why the population is so high.

have a think about what you wrote there.

InFront

No

Says the man who carelessly dangled a toddler from a fifth floor window!

"If you cant catch your baby
Dont dangle your baby
And dont think maybe
If you cant catch your baby"

Pigman II

I Honestly Dont Know

Personally I think you should be forced to butcher and eat your own children if you can't afford to maintain them by your own means. This idea of the state rewarding people for bringing more and more of their vile little spawn into the world is unfair on people who are actually trying to make something of their lives and take care of their children with out expecting you & me to foot the bill.

If it was talented and successful people having lots of kids then we might start to evolve as a species. Unfortunately it seems to be the poorest, stupidest and worst of society doing most of the breeding, making it a race to the bottom.

The book Freakanomics suggests that crime in NYC dropped as a result of the legalisation of abortion 20 years prior. Basically it was getting a head-start killing off the people who were being born into ****ty lives and growing up to be even ****tier members of society.

Now this idea can be argued either way but I'd certainly believe that bringing more hungry mouths to an already stretched society is just going to add to the problem rather than solve it.

junkyard

I Honestly Dont Know

It seems to me that the ones who have most of them are the ones who can least afford to have them. If everyone was as irresponsible as these people we'd be over run with irresponsible kids and the problem would get bigger and bigger as we can see in 3rd world countries. Personally I can't see how sending food to 3rd world countries is solving anything, if anything its only adding to the misery by keeping them alive to give birth to another generation of hardship and misery.

simu

No

junkyard wrote:

alive to give birth to another generation of hardship and misery.

That's pretty much what humans do whether in the third world, first world or even world -793.

: - p

Flukey

No

The nature of life is to procreate, so people will always do so, no matter where they live. If they have reached the age where they can have children, then there is a good chance for their descendants to do the same, and so life goes on.

junkyard

I Honestly Dont Know

Yeah but I think the question being asked here is would you have kids if you had no money and no hope, I know I wouldn't .

InFront

No

If our ancestors had adapted this policy throughout history i know I wouldn't be alive and I would assume that hardly anybody posting on this thread would be. Most people's ancestors have lived through famine and poverty, right? I think the desire to procreate would be there whether we were in poverty or not.

riskky

No

InFront wrote:

If our ancestors had adapted this policy throughout history i know I wouldn't be alive and I would assume that hardly anybody posting on this thread would be. Most people's ancestors have lived through famine and poverty, right? I think the desire to procreate would be there whether we were in poverty or not.

Well spoken. If the abjectly poor and starving irish men and women during the famine years had adopted the self serving attitudes of some of us then I wonder.
Anyway,I doubt if any body here understands what it means to be poor,hungry and live in the 3rd world and I think the question should be put to those who do

phantom_lord

I Honestly Dont Know

lol.

Lust4Life

Maybe they are hoping that their child will bring an end to future suffering in generations to come? Something to ponder.

riskky

No

junkyard wrote:

It seems to me that the ones who have most of them are the ones who can least afford to have them. If everyone was as irresponsible as these people we'd be over run with irresponsible kids and the problem would get bigger and bigger as we can see in 3rd world countries. Personally I can't see how sending food to 3rd world countries is solving anything, if anything its only adding to the misery by keeping them alive to give birth to another generation of hardship and misery.

Get off your high horse man.Life is not that simple

ChRoMe

Pigman II wrote:

Personally I think you should be forced to butcher and eat your own children if you can't afford to maintain them by your own means. This idea of the state rewarding people for bringing more and more of their vile little spawn into the world is unfair on people who are actually trying to make something of their lives and take care of their children with out expecting you & me to foot the bill.

If it was talented and successful people having lots of kids then we might start to evolve as a species. Unfortunately it seems to be the poorest, stupidest and worst of society doing most of the breeding, making it a race to the bottom.

Fcuking Hell!! What a narrow minded view on the world it was quite frankly amazing me as I read it.

You do realise that the ideals you are putting forward are pretty much identical to the Nazi ideals.

Im lost for words on how to respond on some of the views being expressed in this thread to be honest its sickening.