to think that when there is a schools place crisis perhaps the government should think of ways to reduce birth rates?(648 Posts)
MNHQ have commented on this thread.
In my area (London) there is already a huge shortfall in places because there has been a baby boom. They are constantly opening new schools or creating bulge classes but this is often at the expense of other children who lose their playing fields and there is just not enough room in London to keep opening new schools and there is already a housing crisis because the country is so overcrowded.
I think perhaps it is time the government thought about limiting child related benefits to 2 children (which is the replacement rate) and those that want to have more can do so but not with taxpayers money. It would go some way to stopping some of the problems that rising birthrates create such as the school places crisis, overcrowding, pollution, increasing struggles for resources such as food and water and in an already overpopulated world I think the government is being negligent in not putting some sort of limit on child related benefits, especially when it seems to be counter-intuitive (if you work you don't get more money each time you have another child).
I have no answers, I just know that Govt's tend to go for the cheapest option. Maybe THIS is the cheapest option, I don't know.
I would like to see much more in the way of mentoring and voluntary work going on with difficult families who will accept it.
Surprisingly many do, I volunteer with a local education charity which works with families.....you would be surprised by the ones who DO ask for support.
Women are forced into late abortions.
Forced to be sterilised and people are fined for having more than one child.
Parents have resorted to tying their daughters up whilst they work to try and prevent them being kidnapped as prospective wives.
It does NOT have good points.
That is like saying 'well the Nazis DID make the trains run on time'
the China thing is awful. I remember working with a y7 class looking at in geography and studying an article about a dead baby girl 'rag doll on roadside'' type headline.
One child is strange. People will not only have no siblings, but no uncles, aunties, nephews, nieces etc. All the family attention from two sets of grandparents and two parents will be on one child. It would certainly change society as we know it.
as an only child i had all the pressure on me to do well, be successful etc, it was and still is very stressful, with an ailing mum to care for, no one to help out. i sometimes feels envious when people talk about their siblings, but then again there is no sibling rivalry and the like.
Sockret - my strong views relate to selfish ADULTS-where have i said anything negative about the children?! This is very typical-make up your own rubbish and then try and attribute it to me!
Tell me-do you think it's fair or civilised to ignore the needs of children in care and focus soley on your own selfish desires?
seriously look at the state of the world, who wants to think about the potential problems that our children and their kids could face in the future, possible high unemployment, lack of housing, world problems etc the list goes on, things have changed dramatically over the years and not always for the best.
They will face different challenges than we've had, that's all. Or did I miss the period of human history when there was world peace and harmony?
I wonder what my parents were thinking in the 1970s with widespread famine, war in Vietnam, Middle East and Northern Ireland, an economic crisis and a oil crisis. I wonder what baby boomers' parents were thinking having children just after a war involving most of the planet and almost embarking on WW3 (a nuclear holocaust).
oh calm down.
You talk bollocks you get called on it.
Deal with it.
And a tip
you really should be making up your mind whether you are going to adopt OR foster.
They are two totally different things.
well, this thread is a bit mad but it has reminded me to book a blood donation appointment
Mrsfuzzy: you do know that no form of contraception is 100% reliable, don't you?
The desire to adopt has to be a SELFISH desire! You shouldn't adopt if you don't want a child of your own very very deeply. Adopting a child is a selfish action - as it should be, because the children need to be loved and wanted very much. Adopting purely from some 'selfless' motive to help a child will not suffice - if you aren't selfishly desperate to have a child then how will you keep the adoption going if your adoptive child has many troubles, and how would the adoptive child feel? Adopting purely to save a child (and NO I'm not accusing ANYONE here of doing that, before anyone leaps on me) is a surefire way to wind up with a child who is miserable and thinks they have to be grateful for something they have no contol over, and is also a great way to wind up with a disrupted adoption.
I adopted primarily to fulfil my selfish desire to be a mother. I was hoping the adoption would make a real difference to my childs life - and it has - but adopting to have a child is selfish. That's a good thing, for reasons of see above.
Having a baby = meeting your selfish desires
Adopting a child = meeting your selfish desires
There's no difference in that respect
The increased population is the urban south east isn't all due to immigration. There's a lot of migration from within this country because that's where all the jobs are. So one of the issues is that there isn't enough housing in the places where people need to live.
Another issue is that household types have changed. There are far more single-person households, for example, which means we need more housing. 4 people living alone need more housing than 4 people living together.
You are right Lilka
It was not my intention to suggest that adoption should be about rescuing children (ugh!), quite the opposite.
My point was more that that wanting a child and being maternal and a good person is not always going to be enough with the children who are in the system. The ones it was suggested should be a replacement for someone who wants to have more than two birth children.
The motivations for giving birth, adopting may be the same but the situations are very different.
I am not trying to explain that to you btw, it was a point I was trying to make.
I cannot abide the way adoption is thrown onto fertility threads (for example) as if it is a simple alternative to having a birth child.
Please remember our Talk Guidelines, especially the bits about personal attacks.
Devere- you were asking where adoptees would come from if the UK 'ran out' of them. I gave you an answer. The same places they are currently being adopted from. I don't believe the UK will ever be short on adoptees.
It is laughable that you think i would 'punish' a child because of their parents decisions. As for not being aware of the reality-LMAO!
If you share the view that it is ok to disrespect and show no empathy towards a birth mother who is a drug addict/alcoholic or any other unsavoury personality you can add, then yes you would be punishing a child because of their parents, by definition.
Friggin-how patronising of you and Devere - i am under no illusions whatsoever. I am fully aware and prepared to meet those kind of challenges.
dysfunctional Could you please give me an example of what you consider a 'selfish adult'. Can you explain the circumstances surrounding this 'selfish adult' as I am slightly confused as to who you think is selfish.
I have no reason to dislike you I don't know you, but does the fact that you have upset several people not tell you that it may be your attitude that needs to change.
Please do look at your reasons for wanting to adopt or foster and please listen to those who are experienced in being an adoptive parent. Above all please open your mind and understand when you say you are prepared to meet challenges that begins now with your attitude and views.
you were asking where adoptees would come from if the UK 'ran out' of them. I gave you an answer. The same places they are currently being adopted from. I don't believe the UK will ever be short on adoptees
But the problem with that is that is that children from other countries should only be adopted into the UK if there is no adoptive home for them in their own country. Just saying 'oh we'll go get children from other countries if there aren't any here' is such an entitled attitude. It's also not considering the needs of the children. It's just treating the children as importable objects. Worldwide, we need to be working towards enabling every child to find an adoptive home in their own country. We need to be aiming for international adoptions to reach nearly 0 exept for relative adoptions because ALL the children have been found homes in their country.
International adoption is very rare in the UK, because it's hard, there are more steps to it, because it's expensive and because the system very much discourages it. There are less than 200 international adoptions a year, and maybe no more than 100 - compared to 5000 domestic adoptions. Children are barely being adopted from anywhere. Worldwide, the tend is that international adoption is dropping and dropping.
I also think saying adopt from other countries doesn't really look at long term consequences either.
So all these other countries hear about how we will adopt their children which in turn could cause immoral adoptions. People having children to be paid, especially if they are from under developed countries.
Children are not objects to be used to solve the problems of the world.
Lilka Is so right and along with MrsDeVere the most level headed people talking about adoption on this thread.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.