Where are all the Children?
Natural reproduction hits an all time low.
Our fertility rate has dropped to 1.87
Whether men want children is probably not the issue here. Women are capable of aquiring a pregnancy if they want, knowing the decision will be fully funded by the State.
I’ve heard some misplaced fear amongst the younger generation, but even from educated women too, that they are doing the world a favour by having a single child. Haven’t they heard the world is past peek population – even China has given up its one-child policy.
Then we’ve seen media articles outlining the thoughts of young modern females, that have better things to do with their time.
It’s not an unrecorded phenomenon in developed societies, even as far back as the Roman Empire, with the decline in natural population generally seen as an ailment to a healthy society.
Is Feminist ideolody killing the Kiwi?
Are we going the way of the moa?
I was reading up on this recently.
To keep the population constant – in other words just to replace the parents – mum and the dad – they must have TWO CHILDREN.
Each mum has to have TWO kids – One to replace Mum and One to replace the dad into the future – thats TWO kids just to replace them.
This is required just to keep the population stable.
So if the birth rates around the world are under 2 = as most nations are – then we are NOT growing the Global Population at all, it is in Decline.
So to create the impression there are vast numbers of people growing out of control around the world which is claimed to be over populated – simply move refugees and people around to create a crisis.
Europe anyone? Open the doors and dump millions of people on Europe.
Of course as some of us have seen, allow the mother One trophy child after which she then kicks dad out the door and engages the state to hunt him for most of his productive life for child support and penalties.
This is certainly a great birth control tactic, make sure dads never want to have kids, given the alienation, the hassle and punishment they receive for doing so.
Well some contries are low but some have huge birth rates.
Some of our pacific neighbours, Africa etc.
The chart shows the world rate is 2.5 which is growth.
The refugees coming from many of those high rate nations with religion or failed health systems major issues.
I think your correct in regards to Europe secretly taking refugees as a population and presumably a economic boost or maintenance of it. The last thing the rich want is no poor to rent houses.
Imagine what will happen when men finally get the male pill.
How about this one.
For the guys it’s for life if not reversible.
For females it’s 3 years.
A 2.0 live birth rate (mum and dad having two children) doesn’t for various reasons maintain a population. For exampke, there are normally more male children born, as they have a higher juvenile mortality rate. You need a factor of 2.30 to be somewhere near the healthy zone.
Globally peek population being the highest rate of increase, rather than a visible decrease, means we will see a deteriorating increase then a decline, regardless of some countries having large increases.
Japan for example, and there are previous posts on their situation, will see a rapid decline of millions of people, as their youth increasingly neither form relationships nor reproduce.
Immigrants or refugees, call them what you like, they gain entry to established economies to facilitate growth. New Zealand, for example, imports teachers especially for Auckland where salaries don’t allow young teachers accommodation options. Schools are engaging in providing accommodation in a desperate bid to engage young teachers rather than continually increase the higher age bands in the industry by importing well funded immigrant teachers.
These things play out in different ways, because of different circumstances. The conspiracy, if there is one, is simply, maintaining economic growth.
There is no clear understanding of our social situation, if we don’t have both a global understanding, and a New Zealand perspective, on what is actually happening.
If we can’t start at that point, we have little hope of understanding current mens issues and likely outcomes – if we fail, it gets ugly, and men die, as a result of mismanaged peace.
No children – I’m me, I can do what I want, she says.
One child – I’m doing the world a favour, she says.
Two children – I’ve done my duty, she says.
Three or more children – (God help the poor bastard, especially if she kicks him out for a better funding option)
Don’t worry women will create children whether we like it or not.
No consent required.
I’m amazed the subject even got to the news.
Don’t worry it’s not from Stuff.
DJ Ward @3: Good on you for highlighting the gender difference in this. As with pretty well every other aspect of criminal justice, men are disadvantaged relative to women.
The ethical concerns described in the article are significant. Similar issues pertain to other demands on inmates in return for earlier release but are rarely raised for ethical consideration. For example,
– having to admit their convicted crime even if they believe they are innocent;
– having to participate in ‘treatment’ programs that involve indoctrination in and subjugation to feminist ideology, other politically correct beliefs and fake knowledge.
While inmates have a right to choose in these matters, unless they agree they are almost certain to be denied early release. To a lesser extent the same applies to inmates undertaking vocational training and aligning with a church group. A related issue is that of plea bargaining in which the system threatens a more severe conviction and penalty unless the accused agrees to admit to a lesser charge, regardless of actual guilt.
So the incentive of earlier release in return for sterilization may be a more extreme example but not fundamentally so different from many other practices in our criminal justice system.
Possibly, constitutional rights are needed circumscribe the use of the state’s power.
DJ Ward @6: In NZ, section 128A(7) of the Crimes Act states:
I am not aware how often this section has been used to prosecute people. I expect it has been used to prosecute men who, for example, falsely claim they had a vasectomy and thereby subject a female to non-consensual risk or actuality of pregnancy. The section should equally be used to prosecute any woman who convinces a man to have sex on false pretense of birth control, infertility etc, but we can predict how the police and Court would respond to any man who laid a complaint.
That is not to imply that I approve of the wording of section 128A; I don’t. I agree with the claimed intent of the section, in the case of clause 7 defining as a sexual offence any sexual participation obtained through deception or false pretenses, but the way section 128A is currently written is foolish and makes an accused responsible for the behaviour, decisions, mistaken beliefs or unmet expectations of an accuser regardless of whether the accused did or said anything to contribute to those matters or whether there was any deliberate exploitation involved. “I was mistaken” is a very different matter to “He used deception to exploit me”, but the the former is all that’s required under the letter of the law. Section 128A, as is the case for many other laws developed over recent decades, was written to provide women with an easy weapon against men, almost impossible to challenge, enabling women to hold men responsible for women’s choices and behaviour (as has been the case for many centuries) on the foolish ‘sugar and spice and all things nice’ assumption that women would never lie or misuse the law. It seems also that such laws have been written on the confident and realistic assumption that police and Courts would be most unlikely ever to use them on behalf of men against women.
However, section 128A is what we currently have and at least we could demand it be applied equally across the genders. We await a test case from a man deliberately deceived and exploited to bring about a woman’s pregnancy; the case will probably need to be a private prosecution because police will almost certainly refuse to uphold a man’s right to be protected by this law.
#8 Man X, I think that piece of legislation is far more insidious than the way you are reading it. Being “mistaken about its nature and quality” allows one to reconsider the act and decide at a later date that you weren’t happy about it’s “nature and quality” and upon reflection, you now consider it rape. This could happen a day later, a week later, a month later or ten years later. Sometimes sex is regrettable but that doesn’t make it rape.
golfa @ 9. I agree. When I have discussed the matter with people they claim that case law probably defines this law in a more reasonable way; I don’t believe it but I haven’t studied the history of application of this law.
With the increasing percentage of female graduates from our universities, with significant student loans, high accommodation costs in professional work areas, and in the pursuit of sucessful careers, how many women will elect not to have children?
We used to joke years ago, that the average family was 2.3 children. This was on the basis, the most women, would produce a family, or in the case of infertility, adopt.
If you did the numbers, of those females willing to have children (or more than one, since that is all they need for an instant income) what would constitute your average family?
Does it double to 4.6 children per battery hen?
Or, it simply does not matter, as long as there is a supply of affluent immigrants, who can afford to pay our landlords the going rate?
Assuming you need 2 children per female so the maths is easy.
Firstly around 15% can’t or don’t have a child
So the rest of 100 women must have an 30 extra children.
If 30 only have 1 child then 30 must have an extra child.
So yes some females are battery hens.
Also immigrants are needed to by the houses coming on the market as kiwis can’t afford them.
#10 This acceptance of “poorly” written legislation is not the sign of a healthy, reliable democracy.
Ambiguous laws make it easy to apply the law differently on different occasions. And this does happen, too frequently – hence the saying “throw the book at him”.
Then the hapless victim of overzealous prosecution is left to sort the mess out through appeal – if they can afford it?
Being practical, what fraction of the population can afford appeal, perhaps after appeal?
I seem to remember a Christchurch father who represented himself, through all the steps to the Supreme caught, where he finally won. He had been seen flicking his son’s ear with his finger. That shows the integrity and cost effectiveness of our prosecution service and appeals process. I cannot see that it inspires confidence in justice, quite the contrary I would say.
The only people who benefit are the people, no the thieves, who work in the system.
Why do we waste so much money on this “system”, for so little social value?
Because legal worker MPs make sure that their own caste is well taken care of, effectively in breach of the conflict of interest rules.
Here is a similar argument in regards to the use of a law in a way that seems to be stretching its meaning.
What is an indecent act?
The definition of indecent is something that is inappropriate, obscene or not in accordance with accepted moral standards.
Was this indecent act intended to insult them?
Was this indecent act intended to offend them?
Not one of his pictures are defined in law as indecent. Neither is a young person in a bikini indecent as they were in public and nobody is permitted to be indecent in public. Could even be filmed without consent for a TV news article and shown to the public for the 6:00 news.
It all comes down to the term acceptable moral standard or inappropriate.
That of course is fraught with danger.
I think when the law was written it ment, don’t masterbate if front of strangers.
Now it could be anything.
Crimes act 1961
126 Indecent act with intent to insult or offend
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who with intent to insult or offend any person does any indecent act in any place.
@Murray, it’s not poorly written legislation but designed and written for a specific outcome. What’s more is that the some legislation like the Domestic Violence Act, while produced in New Zealand by a feminist immigration, was probably written outside of New Zealand.
Where have all the children gone?
Bit hard to have children if the male is sterile.
I wonder if they will get funding to find out why?
This at a time when the Green Party is stating that it’s OK not to name who the father is.
A fatherless society.
With a close relationship with extinction.
@12 it’s not adding up for me.
Given the immigration we’ve had for the last two decades, and our fertility rate is at an all time low – I’m guessing the battery hens might be off the lay.
There is a lot of factors at play.
Endless campaigns and media by feminists complaining how expensive it is to raise children. IE give us more money.
This has to have an effect turning people off having children.
A culture of females persuing a career may cause more to miss out on having children due to infertility at an earlier age than expected as well as expectations of having a partner who has godlike educational and financial performance that will not be met. The clock ticks over while they try and find that man and as it doesn’t happen they buy 10 cats and join the Labour Party hence becoming less attractive to men.
The government making benefits less attractive will lower the numbers who choose to use the DPB as a carrier option.
Immigrants don’t necessarily have children. The immigrant may in fact be a child and we won’t see a birth rate from them for 10 or 20 years, and the immigrant adults may have already had all their children. IE it’s a mistake to think all immigrants are 18 and yet to have children in fact they may for these reasons naturally in NZ have a lower birth rate per immigrant.
Meanwhile this is interesting as it shows how we are lied to by, you guessed it, social science feminists.
The information leads them to say things like.
It costs $250,000 to raise a child.
This leads people to avoid having children and also helps set child support rates and that is definitely causing males to not want to have children
Lies, more lies, and then the media will publish the lies just to help out making sure we believe the lie.
So, it’s not just the left-footers taking the pill after all.
Great news. Update on the male pill.
The end is near for female power and control over conception.
Good information for how this pill works.
Feminist pretend to be about equality.
They will despise this version of it.
They will actually have to get consent for pregnancy.