to think that when there is a schools place crisis perhaps the government should think of ways to reduce birth rates?

[jellysandwich]

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 think sadly in some cases it is.....except I don't think there is much conscious choice. Rather I think that young women with few skills (for whatever reason) are more likely to fall into the lifestyle of having a baby, and then another one and another one. As a midwife I was interested to see just how many babies were unplanned (across all sections of society).....and it is was almost two thirds. Not planned but happy about the pregnancy in most cases.

The saddest case I ever came across was as a HV several yeArs ago. I saw a young Mum on her 21st Birthday .....I was doing the initial visit to her and her new baby......and it was her fourth child. I can e member saying to her "Oh K it's your 21st Birthday" (I did know her pretty well by this time) and her eyes filling up as she said "I'm 21 and I've got four kids".

I think that is an issue.....no real planning....no real hope and life just happens.

That 21 year old actually wanted to be a hairdresser, it took a lot of work to hep her see that her life wasn't over. ...that she COULD still be a hairdresser.

Needless to say her childhood had been horrific and she had ongoing issues as a result.

What about devout Catholics who do not use contraception? Are they not allowed practice their religion? What about children of rape?

You are suggesting control of women and their biological function. If you want to control your body that's fine,but do not even think about controlling mine.

Controlling womens body is wrong but on the other hand, women have to take responsibility for what they do. Having loads of children that you can't afford because you don't use contraception is wrong, whatever relgiion you bleive in.

It's not a problem of people having too many children. It's a problem of governments lacking the simple logic of saying "hey there were x children born last year, so in four years time we're going to need x school places" and to start planning accordingly.

loeri the choice comes into it only in terms of when and how many. Not if, IMO.

Career women may have reproduce less and later but very few have no children at all and for many that was unintentional rather than deliberate. The same as how the young woman in JakeBullet's example didn't exercise conscious choice about becoming a mother of four. Fertility 'choices' run much deeper than that. Even those of us who plan pregnancies do so off the back of a primeval urge to have a child. No amount of rationally thinking "ok, got the husband, house, career and car, I'll have the baby now," would tempt you to have a baby if you didn't want one. Conversely, lots of people feel compelled to have children in less than ideal circumstances. The biological clock is a powerful thing. You can manipulate it but not choose to switch it on or off. You either want children or you don't. Most do.

And while I agree that people should exercise personal responsibility towards reproductive choices, let's not forget that it takes two to make a baby yet discussions like these always focus on women's choices. In many cases they don't have any. You cannot talk about penalising people for irresponsible reproduction unless you include plans to hold men equally accountable.

I think they focus on women mostly because contraception focuses on woman and the RP is more than often the woman.

Personally I think the only way a system where by more than two children were not state funded, would be if the neglect laws were changed to cover financial neglect.

(if you work you don't get more money each time you have another child).
Oh, be still my beating heart, yet another benefits bashing thread.

I have at no point said people should not recieve benefits,what i have said is that child benefit should be limited. People who choose to keep breeding and expecting the rest of society to pick up the tab ARE selfish. Are you telling me that you would teach your daughter to do exactly as she pleases with no regard for anyone else or the consequences?!!!!

I lack of knowledge of current affairs? Why-because i didn't pay attention to one particular topic that didn't really concern me? Lmao!

My daily mail attitude?!! :-D what is that exactly? Im not an avid reader of that rag but you seem to very au fait with it so go ahead and explain.

I have been paying my tax since i was 18 and i have no problem with some of it going towards a persons first child. However,i disagree with it being used to fund every child that they choose to have.

I also never said anything about not giving people financial aid if they need it in the circumstances you describe above. So why try and attribute that to me? If you would like to know my opinion on that-i would like to see my taxes helping those who are in need or in dire straits. Nice try but you can't lie and twist my words to fit the daily mail lover image in your head.

As for my age....my my aren't we getting desperate for more stones to throw :-D

Good job you're not an expert in judging who is fit to be a carer. Incidentally,my foster agency and social worker know me pretty well and they wouldn't agree with you. In fact they don't!!

MrsDeVere -you know fuck all about me and what i know. I already know how the adoption system works hence why i've chosen not to go down that route just yet.

There's nothing wrong with "benefits bashing" when it's justified. Having multitudes of children when you can't even afford to raise the first one IS justified.

Leori - I agree. Men should be held equally accountable but unless more women press that issue it won't happen. I recall having a discussion (amongst the ladies) re the need for more choice in male contraception when the male pill was in the news . It didn't go down half as well as i thought it would. The majority consensus was that men can't be trusted to use it. Yet when i asked my male friends they were all for it,their main reason being the fear of being trapped into fatherhood when either they weren't ready or didn't want to be dads.

I think what we are seeing here IS women bashing though. Why are we reserving our bashing for the woman who has been left behind and IS caring for the child. WHY are we not raising hell about the men who have walked away?

I am constantly amazed by the number of men out there who can walk away from women and children, conceal their income or otherwise avoid paying for their children. THEY are the ones we SHOULD be shouting about and bashing. Not the poor mother left behind.

And lets not forget some of these men (not all) earn well....but are quite happy for the taxpayer to pick up the tab when they move on. Why are we reserving our vitriol for the woman who has been left behind? I think that is sad

MrsK. I hate Malthusians too. They make me want to throw stuff (and tell them to get off the guardian website the Internet, and recognise the irony of their sitting on their arses using up all manner of resources to complain about how there are too many people using up too many resources). Practice what you preach.

It's also fascinating how children have been constructed as a social evil in these debates, just by their mere existence. (And all those who are so anti-children will be glad other people had some when they're old and need someone else's children to take care of them).

I think the thing that most annoys me is that it all seems to be about locating 'the problem' in other people, so that one doesn't have to examine one's own behaviour. The major source of world population growth is among people who actually use very little in the way of resources, but smug fuckers in the west get to sit there congratulating themselves on how environmentally conscious they are for not having children.

I agree with you there JakeBullet. I have a friend with a large family. She is a SAHM, her husband was a high earner. He was tragically killed when his youngest was only 3 months old. My friend had to go on benefits for the first time in her life (3 children under school age, 2 older at the time of his death), and for her it was soul destroying. The attitudes she has come up against are disgusting, people assuming that she had multitudes of children when you can't even afford to raise the first one would have killed her off I think.

I have another friend with 3 children, the father of whom suddenly fucked off to Canada and hasn't been seen since. Should she be demonised for having 'too many children'? Of course not. Each and every one of us are only a divorce, a death, a disability from relying on the state. Something we should all do well to remember.

Couldn't agree more jake I've lost count of the number of times I've had to say to my MIL 'Its absent Fathers, not lone parents who society should be ashamed of' it make my blood boil

Why are we having smaller families

In 1996 - the earliest year that the data is available for - there were 7.4m families, but they tended to be bigger. The percentage of families with only one child has gone up - to 47%. Those with three or more kids is now 14%, down from 17%

Family size is decreasing and yet this thread is trying to link a current shortage of school places to larger families. Leading to large family bashing.

offcie for National stastics

?Married couples had a higher average number of dependent children in their family than other family types, at 1.8 children per family compared with 1.7 on average

Perhaps a campaign against marriage is in order - as clearly marriage is leading to a shortage of school places .

maddening
As an aside i also wonder whether the baby boom is also a response to the unsettled atmosphere in global politics/wars - like there was a baby boom after ww2 - maybe an innate survival instinct?

I think it is the Grandchildren of the baby boomers being born - along with the previous cohorts delayed birthd due to later motherhood - but the Guardian article above suggests economics is playing a role.

It shows poorer area have higher numbers of bigger families - however we have 3 DC and live in a poorer areas - with good primary - than perhaps expeced from our income/background as we wanted a bigger house for the money we had because of number DC wanted and we are not alone in that.

Who said anything about STOPPING having children alltogether? Where are they coming from at the moment?
Even if the UK adoptive registers were down to zero there is a whole world outside our shores.

I agree about the absent fathers comments. I have heard this so many times from different people. Dads who could pay deliberately not and pretending they have no income etc.

However, i do think that there is a lack of aspiration in some circles and young people should try and get a job first and some ability to earn and pay for themselves then think about a family further down the line rather than being pregnant in their teens and needing the taxpayer to fund this.

Oh good idea. No one in the UK should have babies and we'll just import children from the majority world in the same way that we import, say, bananas and coffee.

Indeed, the schools place issue could really be alleviated if we insisted that people could only import children of secondary school age.

Dads who could pay deliberately not and pretending they have no income etc.

I know many woman who have parnters like this - one case guy gave up a good well paying job just so to spite ex-wife and his own DC.

I've know cases where when increases have occured through child support agency and the reponse is to punish the DC by stopping contact.

In my DN case father pays nothing but DSis doesn't persue it as she is so worried it will mean he'll be even more of an awkward bastard than he is at the minute. Our parents subside and support her and she works bloody hard as well. He now has a second DC with another woman. She has been told she is lucky he is still around and showing a spordic interest.