<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For those hindu career women who have difficulty getting married for whatever reason Artificial insemination as done by single western women is a must do<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im afraid the 'log kya kahenge factor' will play a big role. Unfortunately, to be a single woman or a divorcee is Kerala is a big blot and source for constant gossip.
How do you propose to overcome these social mores?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Don't get me wrong, I'm all for increasing the hindu birth rate. I'm just not convinced this can be done. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then, we have already lost the bigger battle - the battle to keep India largely Hindu.
Now, to fight the smaller battle....
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This demographic trend has been an open secret for a while now, but what have we Hindus done to counter it?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->... and that is the battle to keep a small but growing core of believers that eventually obtains a voice for itself in the marketplace.
<b>Go forth and multiply, Church tells members</b>
<b>Alarmed over the declining birth rate among Christians and the rising population of Muslims in Kerala, the Church in the State has decided to launch a campaign to encourage Christians to have three or more children.</b>
The larger family concept is mooted by the Church in the context of the fall in the population growth at a rate of -0.40 per cent a decade. Sources in the <b>Roman Catholic Church said Hindus in the State also should view the situation seriously</b> as their rate of fall of population growth, at 1.55 per cent a decade, was far more critical in the context of a growth in the Muslim population at a rate of 1.75 per cent in ten years.
The Catholic Church has taken a serious note of the situation and would soon launch a campaign right from the level of parishes, the minutest community body. The plan is to reach the message of the urgent need for giving up the small family concept and to ask each and every man and wife to have at least three children.
In Kerala, Hindus constitute 55 per cent of the total population, while Muslims form 24.7 per cent. Christians constitute 19 per cent or less.
The worry of the Church, which had come out in a Christian publication in the form of an article by a high-ranking Church official two years ago, is no more informal. A recent two-day meeting of the Kerala Catholic Bishops' Council (KCBC) at Kochi discussed the issue at length and officially decided to initiate the campaign for "larger Christian family". A KCBC office-bearer said the issue would be discussed again in detail at the next KCBC meet scheduled for August. He said the formal launch of the campaign would be after that but the ground work would start immediately.
"Some work has already been done," he said. Bishop Mathew Anikkuzhikkattil of the vast Idukki Diocese, who was also the chief of the KCBC Family Commission, had put forward the idea of larger Christian families. Church source confirmed that a strategy for implementing the concept in the parish or diocesan level would be formed at the August meet of the council. He added that the concept would be named "respect for life" for this was not only because of the concern for the falling population but also because Christianity is based on life and family.
He also said that ideas like giving special support to families with three or more children in Church-run hospitals and educational institutions would also be considered.
"<b>This is the only way to circumvent a huge threat we are presently facing, just like Hindus, in the case of population. As far as the Christians, especially the Catholics, are concerned, the number of children belonging to the community, which had stood at 40 per cent of our total population 50 years ago, is alarmingly shrinking. At today's rate of population fall, this would shrink to 15 per cent of our total population by 2050. We have to correct the course," he said. </b>
A KCBC official said the demographic studies were showing an alarming trend in Kerala where Muslim families alone were showing increase in children, while the number of kids in both Hindu and Christian families had been falling sharply.
Among the chief seven denominations of the Christian Church in Kerala, Syrian Christians, who constitute 80 per cent of the total Christian population, are the most concerned about this fall in population. "Our men and women had got good education and this had contributed hugely to the shrinkage of the population. We will have to use our means to re-educate them to have more children," said the KCBC official.
Catholics had the right to decide on the number of children according to their economic and health indications, which had undergone a good growth in the peculiar Kerala conditions. Those who were more prosperous and healthy were opting for fewer children.
The official said the Syrian Christian population, which stood at 9.7 per cent of the total Kerala population just a year ago could plummet to a mere eight per cent in another ten years. "The children-per-couple status among us is less than 1.7 while that of the Muslims is above three, he said.
06-17-2008, 04:32 PM (This post was last modified: 06-17-2008, 04:36 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Jun 16 2008, 04:05 PM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Jun 16 2008, 04:05 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Go forth and multiply, Church tells members</b>
<b>Alarmed over the declining birth rate among Christians and the rising population of Muslims in Kerala, the Church in the State has decided to launch a campaign to encourage Christians to have three or more children.</b>
The larger family concept is mooted by the Church in the context of the fall in the population growth at a rate of -0.40 per cent a decade. Sources in the <b>Roman Catholic Church said Hindus in the State also should view the situation seriously</b> as their rate of fall of population growth, at 1.55 per cent a decade, was far more critical in the context of a growth in the Muslim population at a rate of 1.75 per cent in ten years.[right][snapback]82913[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Last time Hindus told Hindus to have more kids, the christos in Kerala went berserk. But now they want Hindus to have more. Of course they do: the parasite of christianism needs the host it preys on and it needs its pincushion. They've just realised their food provisions are getting low in supply.
While Hindus are present in a significant enough number, communists and islamis will only attack them, so christians will be safe from the other two terrorist ideologies. The christos can keep deflecting all the focus onto Hindus. And with lots of Hindus around, they have more people for themselves to feast on/prey on/"convert". (Christos find it hard to terrorise communityrants or islamiterrorists with the same success-rate.)
But, despite the fact that a christo said it for their reasons, Malayalees and other Hindus should have lots of kids - stop becoming a minority in Dharmic land. Must remember christoterrorised Nagaland, islamiterrorised E and W TSP and islamicommuniterrorised W Bengal.
These exhortations to go forth and multiply , just show the degree to which religious ideologues are out of sync with economic realities . in any case such exhortations are being actioned upon in Ghettos where the poorest of the poor reside. if this "rabbit" strategy has to be defeated , concerned people must stand up for the poor in these ghettos against the assorted Idealogue/slum lord combine and an outreach must begin.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sauravjha+Jun 17 2008, 06:39 PM-->QUOTE(Sauravjha @ Jun 17 2008, 06:39 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->These exhortations to go forth and multiply , just show the degree to which religious ideologues are out of sync with economic realities . in any case such exhortations are being actioned upon in Ghettos where the poorest of the poor reside. if this "rabbit" strategy has to be defeated , concerned people must stand up for the poor in these ghettos against the assorted Idealogue/slum lord combine and an outreach must begin.[right][snapback]82933[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Saurav, your post implies that having more children than two is an economically irrational idea for the poor. I would like to contest that.
There is nothing particularly sacrosanct about the number <b>2</b>. Why must we have 2 and only 2 children? What is wrong with having 3 kids, or 4? Why is it such a bad idea?
1. More hands , more work. the parent can even feed of the kid like a parasite.
2. high infant mortality rate , necessitating more births in order to ensure that atleast some survive.
now, neither of these impulses are found to very economically prudent in the long run. typically the return from the "Investment", that is kids, doesn't really yield returns till the kid crosses a certain age and also after a certain age the returns kind of taper off and then start falling ( as the kid achieves independence) . thus it is only in a narrow age band that the investment may pay off and that too isn't assured, leading to abandonment etc. Moreover the recurring expenses ( food etc) have to be met as well. More 'benign" parents send the kid in the "useful" age band to work someplace for a square meal or two.
The high birth rate is of course on account of the fact that parents aren't able to gauge survival probabilities with any real degree of accuracy. this invariably leads to more kids than they had bargained for. Link this with argument no.1 and you will begin to see that from the standpoint of a poor person having more kids doesn't really pay.
On the other hand if you have less kids and plan a family. then the chances are, those kids will grow up to be healthy productive individuals ( hopefully) and may support you in your old change. Besides if you are wise you'll have enough change left over in any case to support your retirement, as it were.
Now from the point of view of society , smaller families make eminent sense. Besides the obvious fact that resources will have to be distributed among a lesser number of people , the fact is smaller families mean greater savings. As we all know savings determines investment . so this has a direct impact on growth. Of course I am assuming that your society will not turn into a high mass consumption set like the U.S and the propensity to save will very much be there. Moreover, having an undernourished work force hampers productivity considerably. In the long run growth essentially depends on augmenting productivity.
From the point of view of the ideologue , exhorting people to multiply makes eminent sense, because it would make there position even more desperate (poor people) and therefore the market for recruiting foot soldiers will be heavily skewed in the consumer's (ideologue) favour. These guys don't really send all the kids in an area to 'training camp" aka school . With "FDI" from places like Saudi Arabia , raising ( if that term can be used) a critical mass of frustrated and abused people to do your bidding becomes a cinch. Actually , I'll eat my words, the ideologues are pretty much in sync with economic realities.
Today, we often hear the term demographic dividend and simultaneously hear about the fact that the west is ageing. Now there may be an optimal population for a country , with a particular replacement ratio . However arriving at this figure needs a set of assumptions that inherently depends on the nature of the political dispensation.
Unfortunately , such an exercise has proved futile in the past and the primary reason for the failure of centrally planned economies lies in the fact that the population growth rate could not be targeted despite direct state intervention in some cases.
the number two has been arrived after carrying out a particular demographic exercise taking into account fertility rates etc. However it is somewhat arbitrary even though work has gone into determining this figure.
oops, sorry missed something. having more kids also means that the efficiency of the other adult member in the family, namely the child bearer , is severely impaired for significant lengths of time . so you essentially trade off the mother's health for a narrow band of the child's life.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->thus it is only in a narrow age band that the investment may pay off and that too isn't assured<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Returns on investment are not assured for a majority of investments. Not just kids. Your investment in your education (software engineering, say) has gone down-the-drain if the product you have trained on is obsolete, or worse still, if you suffer brain damage in an accident or a stroke.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand if you have less kids and plan a family. then the chances are, those kids will grow up to be healthy productive individuals ( hopefully) and may support you in your old change. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your use of the phrase "hopefully" is apt. There is no guarantee here, either. Not having children is also an investment choice, and like all investment choices, there is risk here too.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides if you are wise you'll have enough change left over in any case to support your retirement, as it were.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, no guarantees. But there is another issue: in the current economic situation, children tend to be more productive than their fathers. For eg. my beginner's salary was higher than my father's salary, on the day of his retirement. So, an investment in more children may be a wiser choice, in most middle-class families.
As I said, these are all investment choices, there are no guarantees here.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the number two has been arrived after carrying out a particular demographic exercise taken into account fertility rates etc. However it is somewhat arbitrary vene though work has gone into determining this figure.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Can you cite any such work? I don't believe there has been any such demographic exercise. IMO, two kids are recommended only because of its alleged "social" or "civic" value - two would replace two. That has nothing to do with how many a family can support, or how good an investment choice it is <b>from the point of view of the family</b>.
I also have doubts about the civic utility of this choice, but that is a debate for another day.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Returns on investment are not assured for a majority of investments. Not just kids. Your investment in your education (software engineering, say) has gone down-the-drain if the product you have trained on is obsolete, or worse still, if you suffer brain damage in an accident or a stroke.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While investments are never devoid of risk, there is always the possibility of managing risk better.. when dealing with family size uncertainty isn't that programmable and certainly not by poor folks in ghettos. Having said that the Ghetto gives the wrong signals about family size. it is believed that the commune will allow more kids to be reared than otherwise possible and parents calibrate their expectations accordingly. But as i have said in the earlier post not all these kids end up being turned into foot soldiers or anything for that matter.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Again, no guarantees. But there is another issue: in the current economic situation, children tend to be more productive than their fathers. For eg. my beginner's salary was higher than my father's salary, on the day of his retirement. So, an investment in more children may be a wiser choice, in most middle-class families.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright , here I would just like to point out a few things. Children may not be really be earning more than their parents in real terms i.e when you take into account inflation. of course it could be argued that at least the number of consumption possibilities is greater today , on account of access to consumption loans etc , but not really. Credit isn't free ( UPA loan waiver notwithstanding) and ultimately your consumption basket is determined by your real income, spread over time and discounted of course.
Secondly , from the point of view of society , higher incomes may not necessarily mean higher productivity. wages are typically different from marginal products, as it were, on account of market imperfections.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Can you cite any such work? I don't believe there has been any such demographic exercise. IMO, two kids are recommended only because of its alleged "social" or "civic" value - two would replace two. That has nothing to do with how may a family can support, or how good an investment choice it is from the point of view of the family.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
there was some work done at ISI under the auspices of the Planning commission . I'll look into it. what you are saying is basically that its all some arbitrary Hum do , Hamaare do philosophy. Of course, like you said its not really sacrosanct , but I feel that it is unlikely that the optimum will be 3 or 4.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Children may not be really be earning more than their parents in real terms i.e when you take into account inflation. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->When I said that children were making more than their parents, I was replying to the point you made here:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides if you are wise you'll have enough change left over in any case to support your retirement, as it were.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Here is my logic: your children make much more money than you do IMPLIES they can provide better for your retirement than you can from your own savings. In any case, your savings are more likely to be affected by inflation than their earnings. Your savings are remnants of past earnings before the inflation happened and will therefore suffer devaluation, while your children's earnings have already taken the inflation into account.<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->but I feel that it is unlikely that the optimum will be 3 or 4.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Why do you feel that?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->having more kids also means that the efficiency of the other adult member in the family, namely the child bearer , is severely impaired for significant lengths of time . so you essentially trade off the mother's health for a narrow band of the child's life.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> I see some limitations to this line of argument:
1. This is a good argument for not having any children at all. But, no one is making that argument. Why? Because, we are trading off on our health all the time. When we drink tea, coffee or wine, when we drive (or even breathe) in Bangalore, we are trading off on our health. What makes this particular trade-off (having more children vs. preserving our health) so unique?
2. How much of a mother's health is really compromised? I notice that certain kinds of cancer (like carcinoma of the breast, etc.) are less likely to occur among women who have multiple kids, who have their kids earlier in life, etc. The female body (of all species that sexually reproduce) appears to be equipped for that kind of strain. In fact, except the complications of childbirth like puerperal fever, etc., I cannot off-hand recall any disease whose incidence increases after childbirth in the long term.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is my logic: your children make much more money than you do IMPLIES they can provide better for your retirement than you can from your own savings. In any case, your savings are more likely to be affected by inflation than their earnings. Your savings are remnants of past earnings before the inflation happened and will therefore suffer devaluation, while your children's earnings have already taken the inflation into account.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well yes and no. Income streams from savings also take into account inflation depending on the interest rate regime that you may have opted for. Present earnings by your scions may account for inflation but it does not mean that they are necessarily <i>higher in real terms.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. This is a good argument for not having any children at all. But, no one is making that argument. Why? Because, we are trading off on our health all the time. When we drink tea, coffee or wine, when we drive (or even breathe) in Bangalore, we are trading off on our health. What makes this particular trade-off (having more children vs. preserving our health) so unique?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the case of kids there is utility as well as disutility. in the case of the addictions mentioned above there is only disutility . Of course addictions can also be "rational" if you say that smoking now will give me more pleasure when i smoke later , since I will get addicted ,. this particular line of reasoning is called adjacent complementarity. However the fact is, in the case of pregnancy you interrupt a current income stream for expected utility .
From the standpoint of a poor family where the woman necessarily works , pregnancy means a severe interruption in the income chain. Moreover women do a lot of other activities for the household such as collecting firewood , water etc. All of this will then have to be done by somebody else or if indeed the woman continues to do this , she does so at serious risk to her health and to the life of her baby. Unfortunately, this is indeed the fate of many women in our country.
Vishwas , if you were a woman you would not be looking at pregnancy as kindly as you are now. Ask a woman's perspective on it. because they are the ones having to do the" work" . the problem with ideologues lies precisely in this issue. they tend to look at women as bags to further their own devious agenda. the moment women start getting educated and have a voice all grand conquer the world strategies start falling apart.
while having multiple births may reduce the risk of some forms of cancer, the fact is , health hazards multiply with every pregnancy. And by health risks i don't mean a disease or two but mortality. Moreover the age profile of the mother is also important . the safe age for having kids is the 18-26 bracket . older and juvenile females run the risk of death with every pregnancy.
Saurav, first, let me clarify my stand:
I believe that every family should decide how many children it wants to have, <i>completely disregarding the state's recommendation of 2</i>. It should be aware of the possibility that the best number of children might be higher than 2. I also believe that, in the case of families who are not poor and who have a steady income, the number is probably higher than 2. So, I will confine myself to arguments about the lower-middle-class, the middle-middle-class, the upper-middle-class and the richer classes. Now, with this in mind, let me go on.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sauravjha+Jun 18 2008, 02:33 PM-->QUOTE(Sauravjha @ Jun 18 2008, 02:33 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is my logic: your children make much more money than you do IMPLIES they can provide better for your retirement than you can from your own savings. In any case, your savings are more likely to be affected by inflation than their earnings. Your savings are remnants of past earnings before the inflation happened and will therefore suffer devaluation, while your children's earnings have already taken the inflation into account.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well yes and no. Income streams from savings also take into account inflation depending on the interest rate regime that you may have opted for. Present earnings by your scions may account for inflation but it does not mean that they are necessarily <i>higher in real terms.</i><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->But, again, this is a good argument for not having any children at all. I am curious, why do you think it is a good idea to have even the 1 or 2 children you advocate?
In the case of those who are not poor, in most circumstances, the children are going to end up making more money than their parents. Now, if that is true, I don't see why the middle classes to restrain themselves to having only 2 children.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sauravjha+Jun 18 2008, 02:33 PM-->QUOTE(Sauravjha @ Jun 18 2008, 02:33 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. This is a good argument for not having any children at all. But, no one is making that argument. Why? Because, we are trading off on our health all the time. When we drink tea, coffee or wine, when we drive (or even breathe) in Bangalore, we are trading off on our health. What makes this particular trade-off (having more children vs. preserving our health) so unique?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the case of kids there is utility as well as disutility. in the case of the addictions mentioned above there is only disutility . Of course addictions can also be "rational" if you say that smoking now will give me more pleasure when i smoke later , since I will get addicted ,. this particular line of reasoning is called adjacent complementarity. However the fact is, in the case of pregnancy you interrupt a current income stream for expected utility .
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->If you replace the word "interrupt" to "trade-off", this would be true of any kind of life/auto/home insurance. In fact, this is true of most capital investments, it seems to me. Actually, for most expenditures as well. So, again, what makes this particular trade-off (more-kids vs mom's-health) so different that the rule of "2" must be imposed on all and sundry without exception?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From the standpoint of a poor family where the woman necessarily works , pregnancy means a severe interruption in the income chain. Moreover women do a lot of other activities for the household such as collecting firewood , water etc. All of this will then have to be done by somebody else or if indeed the woman continues to do this , she does so at serious risk to her health and to the life of her baby. Unfortunately, this is indeed the fate of many women in our country.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I will confine my argument to the non-poor only. So, I will not respond to this one.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Vishwas , if you were a woman you would not be looking at pregnancy as kindly as you are now. Ask a woman's perspective on it. because they are the ones having to do the" work" .<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->1. I am not looking kindly at pregnancy - I see it merely as an instrument.
2. I suspect most women do the same. They look upon it mostly as an instrument for fulfillment and as an investment for greater good for self and family.
In any case, you cannot declare certain arguments out-of-bounds for half of humanity. If you think a woman's perspective is so valuable, go ahead and share it with the rest of us.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->the problem with ideologues lies precisely in this issue. they tend to look at women as bags to further their own devious agenda.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Everybody does it. Ideologues, non-ideologues, modernists, all kinds of people. Reproduction is so important to the species that virtually every ideology, ancient or modern, wishes to control it for the greater good, according to its definition of good.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->while having multiple births may reduce the risk of some forms of cancer, the fact is , health hazards multiply with every pregnancy. And by health risks i don't mean a disease or two but mortality. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What are these health hazards that multiply with every pregnancy? Remember, I am talking about middle-class women mostly. Can you cite some studies, that control for socioeconomic circumstances? Even wikipedia references will do.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Moreover the age profile of the mother is also important . the safe age for having kids is the 18-26 bracket . older and juvenile females run the risk of death with every pregnancy.
[right][snapback]82970[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->How large is this risk of death with every pregnancy? From the wikipedia: In 2000, the United Nations estimated global maternal mortality at 529,000, of which less than 1% occurred in the developed world. However, most of these deaths have been medically preventable for decades, because treatments to avoid such deaths have been well known since the 1950s.
I suspect that most Indian middle-class women have not heard of maternal death for the last 15 years.
Aah my friend , you and I are focused on different segments of the population. while I am worried about ghettos and ideologues, you are more concerned about the madhyam varg.
Since you are unwilling to talk about the poor , who make up most of the world anyway , there is no point in my continuing with that area.
Now as far as the more well to do are concerned, they don't replicate that much do they ? well, they don't because they don't "feel" the need to . moreover they don't really want to sacrifice current consumption and "selfishness" dictates that smaller units are the best way forward.
Why do they have kids? well procreation is a basic instinct and besides the general , my descendants/blood etc etc , kids keep couples in tow with each other. In my opinion a marital couple is actually unstable and it is the infusion of "new blood" that renders the mix stable. God's way of doing things.
Remember, my earlier arguments seem reductionist because they don't really focus on more humane impulses. moreover, clearly the utility from having a few kids overwhelms the disutility from doing so , in most middle class homes. people generally want a few kids for the sheer joy of it. but most people wouldn't want too many unless they like "big families".
Now from society's standpoint , should the rich have more children ? well a purely darwinist standpoint would say yes, these kids would grow up to be healthier and stronger . However "exhorting" the middle classes or the rich to do anything is not going to work anyway. people today have their own conceptions of life subject to acronyms such as DINK etc.
the larger issue is of course about choices and whether family size should in any way be dictated by the state , through an incentive /disincentive scheme .
Do I support non -coercive family planning ? absolutely. Do I support the view that pregnancy should be seen as an instrument . absolutely not. The ability to procreate is a gift from nature/ God , it should not be seen as a tool for any purpose, other than humanity .Women should have the final say in the reproductive process. And i mean the mother and not the mother-in-law.
In an ideal world kids should be born out of love only . but then, this isn't an ideal world , is it?
Given the fact that most middle class people aren't marrying early anymore. the chances are they'll end up having kids in their very late twenties or early thirties or even later . now that's way beyond the 18-26 ideal zone. Now, If your wife has the first kid when she is 29 , when are you going to have your fourth kid?
From the link given by Saurav:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->ANNIE GUEST: So what messages are there here for women wanting to have children?
ELIZABETH SULLIVAN: I think there's a consistent message coming through all areas of maternity care that deferral of childbearing has some associated risks for both the mother and the baby.
ANNIE GUEST: So women should perhaps be getting on with it earlier?
ELIZABETH SULLIVAN: It's a good question, but I think what it says is that there are less complications going to occur if you have babies at a younger age.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
06-19-2008, 02:41 PM (This post was last modified: 06-19-2008, 02:52 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Jun 15 2008, 05:54 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Jun 15 2008, 05:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The point is to make new territories Hindu majority as a backup, what do you think Muslims are doing in Europe?
[right][snapback]82851[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Bharatavarsha, there's one important thing that Hindus overlook.
Any religio-ethnic community that has no homeland to represent them while permanently resettled in a foreign christowestern land <b>will be</b> murdered out by the west.
It takes a few centuries at the most.
Look at history of Jews, Gypsies. It does not matter what century this is. Christowest is fickle. It will swing from being leftist to rightist like a pendulum. Period of fascism, swing back to ultra liberalism. Renewed fascism because of growing, festering resentment. Penitence of recent crimes makes them ashamed and overcompensate again. And once more it repeats....
Only reliable thing about christowest is that this truth holds: they gang up and massacre a population living amongst them that has no nation. Hindus other Natural Traditionalists will do well NEVER to forget that. No moment or year or decade of feeling one fits in should ever make one lull themselves into a false sense of security and convince themselves that it can be permanent. It cannot be. It is the nature - historically verified by innumerable repeats - of the christowest.
People should not imagine that christowest is like India. India took in Parsees and Tibetans and Jews, and has never reproached them for the permanent or temporary duration that they lost their parent homeland. Even when it looked like Jews would never get Israel back, no Dharmic in India had a problem with their community. And their adoptive homeland was theirs as long as they liked. Who knows when Parsees and Tibetans will get their parent homelands back (and even whether they would want to return at that stage). Meanwhile Hindu Bharatam has no problem accepting them as her children.
But this has <i>never</i> been the mentality of the christowest. Do not let flowery words like liberalism, tolerance, democracy and multiculturalism fool you. <- These are ideas the christowest likes to imagine as describe itself - but they don't. They may be predominant for a few decades, perhaps a century or even longer, but eventually the other side returns and they always start by taking it out on those who have no homeland. Jews for centuries realised why they absolutely needed their homeland. Hindus should learn from them not only about how they revived Hebrew, but how (and why) they got their land back and have kept it.
Hindus need to make sure Bharatam and Nepal are Hindu (which will ensure it as a homeland for all Dharmics). They should help any other historically Dharmic lands return to the Dharmics, like Tibet for the Tibetans. And we need to do more than that. Bharatam can't keep getting smaller.
Christoislamis have false claims on other religio-ethnic people's lands, and they parade around like these terrorist claims are valid.
Compare that to us: Indian Dharmics have historically (factually) inhabited all of the Indian subcontinent. Ideally, we have to stop being on the retreat in our own block, start entrenching ourselves firmly in our place again. And then all our population exports can cease and moreover people can return.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In my opinion a marital couple is actually unstable and it is the infusion of "new blood" that renders the mix stable. God's way of doing things.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I've heard that said by a televangelist too!
'Tis very bad marriage counselling, though. Professionals suggest that people never have kids unless their relationship is stable. Would have thought that was a complete no-brainer.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Women should have the final say in the reproductive process.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Always entertaining to hear men say that and then continue to dialogue.
For straightforward reasons, the matter of the number of kids is one of those things that should be discussed before a couple gets married. For some people these things can be dealbreakers. (As also the inability to have kids, or any unwillingness on either person's part.)
If the marriage goes through, they'll need to stick to the agreed number (unless they both agree on a new one, of course). If unforeseen events happen, hopefully by then both people will be mature enough to deal with it together.
Women's age: IIRC from a local health program, research and doctors here said that women from 28 onwards will have greater chance of troubled pregnancy/delivery and the phoetus will have higher chance of developing certain disabilities. For everyone involved, it's best to have kids at an earlier time.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I've heard that said by a televangelist too!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shrug.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->'Tis very bad marriage counselling, though. Professionals suggest that people never have kids unless their relationship is stable. Would have thought that was a complete no-brainer.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The "stability" I referred to , is different from the sense in which these professionals are using it. they are referring to a "stormy" setup, whereas I am referring to stability in a more generic sense i.e in terms of the couple eventually going separate ways. Basically I am talking about the viability of the union itself rather than the presence/absence of domestic "peace". The advise of these professionals is based on the view that it is not advisable to raise kids in a vitiated and environment. however it is often seen that after couples have kids , things tend to settle down and a lot of the storminess goes away.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For straightforward reasons, the matter of the number of kids is one of those things that should be discussed before a couple gets married. For some people these things can be dealbreakers. (As also the inability to have kids, or any unwillingness on either person's part.)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
