Selfsufficientish.com

Not so much controversial as downright unpleasant. Taking the moral high ground against a poverty stricken, AIDS-afflicted, hungry, and politically repressed peoples strikes me as far scarier.

contadina wrote:Not so much controversial as downright unpleasant. Taking the moral high ground against a poverty stricken, AIDS-afflicted, hungry, and politically repressed peoples strikes me as far scarier.

BLOODY HELL, calm down....

I am asking why people have children that they cannot afford to feed.

The fact that a discussion about starving children in Africa led me to this thought is beside the point, as you can see from my original post I say 'IT HAPPENS IN EVERY COUNTRY'

It is not such a stupid question (especially as I say that I am asking in a 'animal kingdom' kind of a way)

I think my original question was more than answered, and some interesting discussion has come out of it... which is great.




I have been accused of many things in this thread which I take umbrage at, I know more about Africa, being poor, rape and AIDS than most people (please bare in mind that few of you know ANYTHING about me and my background)

Perhaps my original question came across as a bit crass but it stands that this world is on a uncontrollable spiral of over-population, God forbid I should discuss it

Perhaps those of you who chose to make personal attacks at me ought to re-read my original post.

Can I just re-iterate, I was asking about EVERY COUNTRY, not just in Africa, but EVERY COUNTRY!!!

True, I don't know you, which us why I took your post at face value. As your post was provoked by a show about starving babies in Africa, it's not a great leap to make. But whether the babies be African, Asian or from a British sink estate, doesn't make such views any more palatable.

Dear Annpan
I think you knew you were walking into a potential minefield with your opening statement - "controversial warning".

This subject will always be emotive, for so many different reasons, and it was maybe a little naive to think that the discussion wouldn't get heated.

Sorry honey, your personal experience is immaterial - you opened a can of worms on a forum open to anyone who cares to register. Few of us know much about each other here, which can have its advantages, as well as offering a sense of community.

Be grateful that people here have the confidence to stand up for their convictions - if someone with truly right-wing tendencies were to try to get a foothold here we can be fairly confident they'd get short shrift.

I think before this gets really heated, it might be an idea to go back and carefully re-read Annpan's original post. There's actually nothing controversial in it other than the word controversial. If she hadn't included that warning, I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelid. It's a straightforward post without moral overtones which expresses a personal attitude and asks for opinions.

I thought that's what a forum was about.

It is indeed MKG

Which is why anyone who, no matter how naively, posts potentially inflammatory ideas must be prepared to receive any equally valid arguments that may disagree.

No heat there, I think.

MKG wrote:I think before this gets really heated, it might be an idea to go back and carefully re-read Annpan's original post. There's actually nothing controversial in it other than the word controversial. If she hadn't included that warning, I don't think anyone would have batted an eyelid. It's a straightforward post without moral overtones which expresses a personal attitude and asks for opinions.

I thought that's what a forum was about.

Agreed. The only eyelid batting I've done was at Clara's and Contadina's postings which I found rather rude. And I like Radio 2.

Annpan wrote:Controversial warning!!!

I am listening to The Jeremy Vine Show on BBC radio 2 just now and they are covering the topic of giving money to Africa... they have a spokesperson from Actionaid talking about the starving babies and that mothers are having to put their children to bed aching in hunger now... here comes the controversial bit.

I only had a child when I knew we were able to provide for her, put food on the table and keep her warm. If we ever decide to have another child it will only happen when I know I can feed them and keep them warm.

I really hope I have this right, are you suggesting that people in africa should plan births more carefully?
If so well we have to look at the way the country has been raped of its culture and religion over the years to now follow in the wake of the "great" british colonial periods. It now has to follow a now very much outdated religion (which still in the last few years has killed people for witchcraft, seeing them fly round on brooms).

With no allowing for contraception as it is forbidden (I do presume that you engage in sexual activities with the help of this) and the quality of life over there in the majority of countries, sex is free and in the "hands of the lord" for the decision on whether you get pregnant or not I do believe that our ancestors are to blame and we should help out and put our hands in the pocket and also change the way this country is ran.
The british government would not even apologize for the 400 years of slavery and destruction of this once beautiful, intelligent and the richest continent on the planet, once seen as the hub of global intelligence schooling people as socrates amongst many...

We killed this county as a nation... understanding and compassion are needed..

But it isn't just a case of people having children when their food supply is uncertain, is it?

Consider, when many of us on this board were born we were in era when it looked really quite likely that the World could effectively end in a nuclear conflagration. And people still had families.

Children were born in the UK in the dark days of 1940/41 when invasion and potential anhilation looked certain and were born in Europe under occupation, where their future was far from assured.

I read a couple of books some years ago of accounts of peoples thoughts during the Irish famines of the 18th and 19th centuries (the big 1845 one was not the only one...) and of the French famines of the same period. What struck me was the continual mention running through the works of the comfort people drew from having families in the absence of more material wealth, even when providing for those families could be very, very difficult.

Are any of us certain that something might not yet occur that could put us into difficulties feeding our children? If we thought really too hard about it the human race might start to run out of steam.

The Riff-Raff Element wrote: Are any of us certain that something might not yet occur that could put us into difficulties feeding our children? If we thought really too hard about it the human race might start to run out of steam.

this is my point when i said none of us know what is round the corner. Things could change drastically.

in my own personal situation, we (my son's father and I) could not really afford to start a family.. we were just managing to pay our mortgage etc, but still we decided, together, it was time and went ahead anyway, our situation was not likely to improve within the next decade anyway, then, while i was on maternity leave, he lost his job. then we found out our child was disabled and if we could manage it at all, he needed one of us at home with him.
we muddled through..
but this is minor to what could happen to any one of us next. I grew up under the threat of being nuked.. now we have climate change, terrorism etc .. and those are the problems we know of.
the thing is.. what do you do about it? what do you tell these women to do about it? and is it up to us, to tell them? I dont personally think so.

it is a controverisal subject.. but lets stay nice about it. Opinions are formed through discussion etc.

gumbo wrote:

Annpan wrote:Controversial warning!!!

I am listening to The Jeremy Vine Show on BBC radio 2 just now and they are covering the topic of giving money to Africa... they have a spokesperson from Actionaid talking about the starving babies and that mothers are having to put their children to bed aching in hunger now... here comes the controversial bit.

I only had a child when I knew we were able to provide for her, put food on the table and keep her warm. If we ever decide to have another child it will only happen when I know I can feed them and keep them warm.

I really hope I have this right, are you suggesting that people in africa should plan births more carefully?
If so well we have to look at the way the country has been raped of its culture and religion over the years to now follow in the wake of the "great" british colonial periods. It now has to follow a now very much outdated religion (which still in the last few years has killed people for witchcraft, seeing them fly round on brooms).

With no allowing for contraception as it is forbidden (I do presume that you engage in sexual activities with the help of this) and the quality of life over there in the majority of countries, sex is free and in the "hands of the lord" for the decision on whether you get pregnant or not I do believe that our ancestors are to blame and we should help out and put our hands in the pocket and also change the way this country is ran.
The british government would not even apologize for the 400 years of slavery and destruction of this once beautiful, intelligent and the richest continent on the planet, once seen as the hub of global intelligence schooling people as socrates amongst many...

We killed this county as a nation... understanding and compassion are needed..

Which country are you talking about? Africa is a continent not a country, and was colonised by many other countries - Germany, Netherlands, France, Belgium, etc etc.

Gonna stick my neck out a little - If the first question is read as 'Why does POVERTY beget more children?' Then there are many possible reasons - each differing according to creed , culture, and the society.

Eg:UK - more children = extra benefits.
Third World nations - insurance of surviving children and insurance for old age.
Some Second World nations - the 'need' to have a son.
Plus varying strong religious reasons.

We could run this as a 101 reasons thread!

As has been pointed out - each of these has applied to the UK at some point in its history, so it is not a problem for only one nation or country,
What is interesting is that we are all (the world - not just this thread!) sitting around debating the problem!

And as far as I am concerned, all we can do is try to understand why they do it - if we really want to understand it. Each culture/country - whatever - has to find their own way of doing things.

What is interesting is that we are all (the world - not just this thread!) sitting around debating the problem! [/quote]

Not only interesting but sad, that we as supposedly the most intelligent of all specie's have not yet looked at the problems we create for ourselves, and for the most part understand, and are not prepared through mostly greed, not willing to share our worlds wealth equally with all mankind. Annpann I do hope that did not you did not take my words as a personal attack on you, for that was not my intention, and in my veiw the question you raised, was valuable lesson to us all to look at the problems of this nature in a far more deeper way.

Which country are you talking about? Africa is a continent not a country, and was colonised by many other countries - Germany, Netherlands, France, Belgium, etc etc.

Hi, a little mistake was made and I am fully aware of it being a continent....
Do you always just look for errors? what about the message?
As for the other countries well they were not relevant as they were not in the initial rant about africa...
What's next picking up on grammar?