To think this situation in East Africa could be less serious than it is if there was more information about contraception.

[JazzieJeff]

Ive been thinking this over for some time, and I don't want to appear prejudiced, but I don't think I am being. Because after all, so many people say of people who are struggling to live on low wages/benefits in this country 'why are they continuing to have children?'. So really, my point is the same, but in East Africa, people are bringing children into a world where there is a bloody good chance they will starve or die a horrible death from dirty water.

I dont know whether it's a lack of education, or the spread of the Catholic faith in the developing world. However, I'm not sure if either of these validates people continuing to bring children into such a dire situation. I can honestly say that if I was in East Africa, and that was happening to me and I didn't have access to contraception that I would abstain. I really would. I could not bear to allow any child of mine to suffer. Secondly, if it really is the Catholic faith which prevents so many people from using contraception (as is the case in many developing countries), why isn't there more pressure from governments and charities on the Vatican to start putting money up to start paying for all these children? It's not like they're short of cash; how about using some of those funds they use to put gold leaf on the walls to start putting food in children's mouths. Children, that ultimately, they are responsible for. Because this is getting ridiculous. This has happened twice (that I know of in this country) in my lifetime. Either way, AIBU to think that there needs to be a better solution to birth control in these places, be it contraception or abstinence?

Mmm shame there linerunner, think you've spent too long on the drunk thread. Because no one else seems to agree with you and your 'internal inconsistencies' which by the way, I have explained (slowly, because you don't seem to understand sarcasm or the parallels I drew in my op). Go and sleep it off, there's a dear.

Such blatant double standards.

I've lost count of the posts suggesting women on benefits should not have kids or starve. Yet other poor women over seas can have as many as it takes.

Even though they share the same motives for having kids, to increase the family income and live better lives.

Yes fs there's the things that have worked out, there are successes like there are anywhere. I just think until you start changing fundamental things like abuse of women's rights, you'll only get so far and only help so many.

But aid agencies for the most part do work on sexual health projects and mostly work on long term projects designed to both improve lives through health, sanitation and education which will have a knock on effect on birth rate and direct contraception/sexual health education rather than dumping rice reacting to emergencies. Why assume nothing is being done and no-one has ever thought of it before? People have been slogging their guts out for years on this very issue but the reality is it takes longer than 20 minutes.

It is not in peoples best interest to only have 1-2 children in an area with high infant mortality. People act in their own best interests. People will not want to restrict their family size dramatically until they are confident that they are unlikely to lose children. You can't simplify it into a 20 minute lecture on contraception.

Your premise that people shouldn't have children if there is "a bloody good chance they will starve or die a horrible death from dirty water" is flawed as that is often precisely why lots of women do choose to have large families. You are also flawed in your thinking that most East Africans are Catholic when they overwhelmingly aren't (There are more Catholics in my address book than in the whole of Somalia) and I wouldn't agree that women who have bigger families are all doing so due ignorance as presumably they would end up having more than the 6-7 average in the 20-30 years between puberty and menopause.

who does not want that its a human right, but so is the necessities that we need to live. we have the luxury of that human right because we have all that we need to survive

snicker that's exactly the post I wanted to write, I think mine was a bit muddled.

snicker I agree with everything you have said, but with regards to the infant mortality, I have heard the opinion of "why are we emotionally blackmailed with their dying children when they chose to have another child knowing it will die?"

By emotionally blackmailed I assume they meant adverts and campaigns for aid etc. You do have to ask, if you knew you were HIV positive, that there was no food or clean water, that you probably didnt even have a home, would you have a child?

And, lets no forget how babies get here. They dont arrive on the doorstep. If you are starving to death are you really in the mood for sex?!

If the answer to these is no, which im guessing it will be, then why in these countries is the answer yes? Finding the answer to that may help find the solution.

If you are starving to death are you really in the mood for sex?!...then why in these countries is the answer yes?

Stunning.

I don't know why everyone is attacking the OP. Usually you don't see this kind of vitriol outside of the "state vs. private school" threads.

When I was a kid (in another Western country) about 30 years ago, I saw my first "save Africa" telethon. My mother pointed out to me that she had been almost exactly my age when she saw her first one, about 20 years previous. My father, who was 13 years older than my mother, chimed in that they used to show footage of starving Africans in movie theatres in the newsreels before the main feature.

The point is, OP is right. Different cultures and tragic circumstances aside, the situation in sub-Saharan Africa has been the same for decades, and is very likely to be the same for your children and their children as well. You can say, 'Well, it's not our business.' But as long as our Western governments pledge taxpayer's money to these countries, money that could go to our underfunded schools and shuttered services and vulnerable sick and elderly, of all races in this country, than it should be the citizens' right to comment on how effectively that money is implemented elsewhere.

By the way, women in underdeveloped countries typically employ breastfeeding their youngest, sometimes until that child is roughly 4-5 years old, as a means of natural birth control. That's why they often don't have "more" than 6-7 throughout reproductive years.

Yes what Snicker said.

JazzieJeff - your OP and your comments read like you've just had this revelation that governments and development agencies should spend money to develop better healthcare and education, including sexual health and contraception - as if USAID, the Dept for international development, CADFUND, the governments of Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya etc..., political parties and people's movements, Oxfam, UNICEF etc... haven't figured this out already.

Funny how people think that working out major political and social changes in countries you know nothing about should be easy.

Killbill - it's a drought ffs - are you saying that people living in drought prone countries, whose food and livlihood depends on rainfed agriculture or animal herds, and whose governments are a bit rubbish should never have children at all ?

Auntychristy - it is a citizens right to say any misinformed thing they like. But watching a few telethons over the years may not be enough to be able judge the situation of a whole continent. It's like saying you watched a documentary about Bosnia and now know all you need to know about the politics, culture and economics of Europde

Did you know that the average economic growth rate accross Africa has risen to 5-6 percent, after many years of stagnation. School attendance and healthcare are up in many countries. Some of the worlds fastest growing economies are in Africa.so not exactly 'no change'.

Of course the story in Botswana, Nigeria and Ghana is quite different to Somalia, Sudan and the DRC. But then the story in Ethiopia is different from 20 years ago. Don't rely on telethons for all your news.

Himalaya, I was using telethons as an example. One can easily refer to not only news articles and stats from NGO's, but families who do missionary and non-sectarian work in the same countries, generation after generation after generation. So split hairs all you want to, I know people who are involved in work in that region first-hand and who don't anticipate that work ending in their, or their children's lifetimes. And the comparison to Bosnia isn't terribly effective, as we in the Western World has not been pouring billions of dollars into it for decades.

No one said there was 'no change'. Nothing stays the same anywhere. However, like I said, there are countries in sub-Saharan Africa that will be heavily, if not wholly, dependent upon aid throughout the life of your children, and their children, whether or not another telethon is ever aired.

And as far as things changing in Ethiopia to use one example, you're absolutely right. Decades ago, they were in the middle of a horrific drought. Now, they are staggering under the weight of refugees from nearby Somalia. It is indeed erroneous to lump these countries in altogether, but they do, for the most part, have very porous borders, many of which are not even the people's own but created by imperialists during colonial days. Therefore one country's progress can be impeded by another country's war/corrupt government/famine.

Which leads me back to my point: that your kids, and their kids, will be supporting Africa.

Anyway, it's getting late. I was just trying to defend the OP, since I felt that this had turned into a lambasting, rather than an intelligent debate. It really doesn't matter what anyone says. In 20 years, if Mumsnet is still around, someone will post the same question about the Western World continuing to support Africa with no end in sight. And 20 years after that. And 20 years after that...

Good night

Who do you think looks after them when they are older? Their surviving children! There's no care of the elderly over there, it's the same in poorer parts of India, the more children , the more money bought into the family and the more people to help care for you when your older. Anyway you will never stop people having children even if they can't afford them which ever country you look at.

These people are in this situation primarily because of the west. How about we address that issue first, the fact that these children are starving so people over here can live detached from poverty.

Auntychrist - you did say "the situation in sub-Saharan Africa has been the same for decades, and is very likely to be the same for your children and their children as well" - which does imply no change.

You have a very Western-centric view, which I guess is understandable since who has time to understand the politics, economics and culture of every country in the world. But it is worth reflecting that picking up impressions from disaster appeals, NGOs and missionaries doesn't mean knowing a country. If you read a domestic newspaper, or listen to what local people are talking about, these outside interventions are fairly marginal in what drives change. People talk about local politics and power structures, local institutions, business opportunities and obstacles, same as everywhere. And you can't make sweeping statements about a continent from a few anecdotes and expect to get it right.

Someone upthread said "they have nothing" which I think is the general impression from charity appeals. It is well meaning, but arogant. Everybody has networks, culture, skills, resources, markets, infrastructure (to varying degrees), politics etc... When disaster strikes people turn to these coping mechanisms first, and it's only when they fail under pressure that they look to outside help. It isn't all about us.

Aid (and particularly humanitarian relief) is such a small part of the public budget, I dont think it it is a major factor effecting my welfare as a taxpayer (or my children, or children's children). I would like to see it spent well though.

There are still many problems but that doesn't necessarily mean that the aid we give "isn't working", it means the situation would be even worse without it.

I do appreciate my op wasn't brilliantly worded; but it is hard to get your opinion across via these forums sometimes and I'm no professional writer. I don't pretend to be.

I do still stand in my opinion though that those affected need more than just a band aid slapping on their problems, which is what a lot of the initial charitable donations get spent on. When the initial crisis is over, and the issue isn't in the limelight any more, donations decrease. Fact.

The population of Ethiopia was 40 million in 1984, now it is 90 million and is projected to reach 170 million by 2050. It was 5 million at the beginning of the 20th century. What does that tell you? The region experiences drought, even without climate change. Like it or not, this country's population has increased 20 times within 100 years. Some of the current inhabitants of the refugee camps have been there 20 years. So no, the aid we are giving is NOT enough, and not the right kind.

Are fewer children a route to prosperity?

Fact sheet prepared by the Media and Communications Branch of UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund.

For the past seven decades, high fertility and poverty have been strongly correlated, and the world?s poorest countries also have the highest fertility and population growth rates.

Lower birth rates, a major component of population growth (mortality and migration are other determinants), do not, by themselves, guarantee greater prosperity. But they do make economic gains more feasible. Smaller families improve economic prospects for the household, and longer birth intervals improve child and maternal health, generating benefits over children?s entire life course. In addition, smaller families enable more women to join the labour force or engage in other entrepreneurial activities.

At the aggregate level, lower population growth may reduce the pressure on national resources and the need for social investments. Over the longer term, smaller families change the age structures of both families and countries in which they live. The greater number of people in the work force compared to the number of dependents allows for greater saving and investment. In Brazil, the effect at the household level is estimated to account for as much as a third of recent poverty reduction.

Conversely, rapid population growth contributes to an increase of inequality. And, rising out of poverty is more difficult for larger than for smaller families

At the country level, economic benefits from lowered fertility are possible because a larger proportion of people are of working age relative to older and younger people. When the working population is relatively large and policies foster job creation, countries can build human and physical capital. However, economists caution that these benefits are not automatic and that they depend on appropriate institutional environments.

The ability to plan how many children to have and when to have them is a recognized human right. However, universal access to contraceptives is not yet a reality ? especially among the poorest. Worldwide, 200 million women would like to delay or prevent pregnancy, but are not using effective contraception. Simply meeting this ?unmet need? for contraception would go a long way toward lowering fertility.

Demand for family planning is expected to soar in the next 15 years as millions of young people become sexually active and smaller families become the norm in many countries. But funding for family planning is declining, and has been doing so for more than a decade.

As most developing countries recognize, committed and focused policies and programmes are urgently needed to moderate population growth as quickly as possible, thus enhancing economic growth and easing demands on social services.

Some 215 women worldwide say they want to delay pregnancy or not have more children, but they are not using contraception.

The average number of children per household over the world is 2.3. In Eastern Africa, this number is still 7.4.

LithaR 'Such blatant double standards.

I've lost count of the posts suggesting women on benefits should not have kids or starve. Yet other poor women over seas can have as many as it takes.
Even though they share the same motives for having kids, to increase the family income and live better lives.'

I can't see how they share the same motives tbh.
Please explain?
I'm reading your post as you're suggesting that women on benefits in countries where a benefits system exists, are motivated to have children to increase the family income and live better lives.
Have I understood your post correctly??

Just e-mail that over to East Africa Jazzie - get them all to read it through and voila. Problem solved.

Now like I said, if you could have a look at Syria and sort that one out? There's a love.

Immediate crisis action saves lives so is more than just a plaster band aid. Obviously long-term help is needed too, but it's not a choice between the two - we can't just leave people to die because a long-term plan will be helpful for the country in the future. We need both, and the aid agencies are making their best effort at approaching the problems from a number of angles - education, healthcare and so on.

There's an interesting section on the Oxfam website called Bin the Myth: Sort fact from fiction about Oxfam and poverty

E.g.

Myth: "Corrupt governments in poor countries waste Oxfam's money"

Reply: "Let's clear this one up, shall we? Oxfam doesn't give money to governments. And yes, corruption exists ? everywhere. We do work with governments sometimes, but we spend our own money, on our own projects, run by our own staff. And we're committed to accounting for every penny!"

cat did I say itd solve the issue? No. This is proof to back up what I mentioned earlier; that aid with regards to contraception has decreased; someone asked me to prove what I wrote, so I did. And that little gem about Syria? You already wrote that last night, except you used Libya as an example. I see what you did there. Ha ha.

But I've proved my point; the formula for western aid isn't working. These countries' populations have increased massively, but their situation hasn't. We came in and 'solved' their water crisis by building wells and therefore encouraging families who were traditionally nomadic families to settle. Unfortunately, townships settled in places where they couldnt be sustained, because people weren't wandering to find fresh pastures for their animals, the drought when it hit, affected huge numbers of people.

This crisis was predicted as early as 2009 by some agencies. And people are still saying the aid is effective? No, it isn't. As I mentioned before, some of the people in the refugee camps have already been there 20 years.

slogan yes. I'm not suggesting we leave people to die for want of food and water etc. What I am suggesting is the long term solutions in place aren't working properly.

So how do you propose to reduce the population Jazzie? Just by telling people about contraception? You think that will work?