« Britblog Roundup # 53 | Main | Malkin and Clinton »

February 20, 2006

Baby Boom Needed.

As with yesterday, the papers are reporting on the IPPR paper about the need for a baby boom in the UK.

The IPPR identified an annual 90,000 "baby gap" between the number of children women say they want and the number they have,
...
There would be 13 per cent more births each year if women had the number of babies they said they wanted in their twenties, said the report.

As with yesterday, reports of desired fertility are always higher than actual fertility. Across time and space.

Just to be objectionable, the problem isn’t with conception. We have double the number of those required to cover the gap. If it really is so important to have these extra 90,000 babies, why not work to cut the abortion rate?

February 20, 2006 in Health Care | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d83475539353ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Baby Boom Needed.:

Comments

TW: "why not work to cut the abortion rate?"

So obvious isn't it? I believe that since 1967 abortion act, something in the region of 5,000,000 people have been 'terminated'. Now, a goodly number of those people might have had children of their own by now, so the actual population decrease caused by the act, may even account for up to seven million people.

Posted by: APL | Feb 20, 2006 10:13:43 AM

Why not cut the need (caused by idiot collectivism) to expand the population and crowd the common areas?

Posted by: Rob Read | Feb 20, 2006 10:43:09 AM

Changing the law on abortion would be a step backwards. It's not the law that is forcing women to abort, it's their circumstances. APL, women don't abort lightly and it's patronising to think they do. Or that a change in the law would stop a desperate woman anyway.

Far better to provide decent maternity leave, better job security for the pregnant woman, and perhaps consider maternity pay, to encourage intelligent women to breed. As it is, it's not the intelligent women who are breeding anyway, because we are too busy earning. And we don't sleep with men too stupid to use a condom.

Oh, and in Britain, we must end this ridiculous practise that gives a pregnant teenager a council house. It may be upping the births but it is a bad incentive, expensive, and it produces bad families that aren't economically productive.

Posted by: auntymarianne | Feb 20, 2006 11:42:16 AM

Auntymarianne: "women don't abort lightly.."

Actually, there is an increasing body of evidence to suggest that many do.

Auntymarianne: "and it's patronising to think they do."

Cool! Get your insults in early.

Auntymarianne: "Or that a change in the law would stop a desperate woman anyway."

Women might in the past have been desperate, particually when there was significant social stigma attached to being a single mother. That is not the case today, and really, after thirty six years of intensive sex education and pretty much freely avaliable contraception and contraception advice, there is in my mind almost no reason for a woman to become pregnant if she does not want to.

For the purposes of the discussion I assume consensual intercourse.

Posted by: APL | Feb 20, 2006 1:05:54 PM

Yes, APL, you're all for freedom except for women.
Women not of your class, anyway. Casual, trivial abortions have always been the resort of the upper classes, without any opprobrium.

Looking at it from another direction,
is there any way to keep a modern economy growing absent an increase in population?
Stimulating demand for non-material things that won't run out but require necessarily-limited creativity to produce?
After all, with our current population we don't really have enough housing or energy for them all, do we? And there are lots of benefits from there being a smaller population at a lower density, aren't there? And we can't continue to expand population indefinitely, can we? The ideal, surely, isn't Mexico City?


Posted by: dave heasman | Feb 20, 2006 3:51:18 PM

Zoe Williams in the Graun today leaps on this, and on Tim's later post :-

"The process of reproducing is always collaborative when it's going well; the fault of women when it isn't"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1714374,00.html

Posted by: dave heasman | Feb 21, 2006 4:22:51 PM

Dave Heasman: "Yes, APL, you're all for freedom except for women."

Uh, no!

Dave Heasman: "Zoe Williams in the Graun today leaps on this, and on Tim's later post :-"

Uh, no!

ZW: "The process of reproducing is always collaborative when it's going well; the fault of women when it isn't"

Uh, no!

Posted by: APL | Feb 21, 2006 10:03:27 PM

Legalise Housebuilding

(Some might quibble, and point out that, under certain circumstances, it is possible to get legal permission to build a house. It is true. Of course, under certain circumstances, it is possible to get permission to take heroin. Both are fundamentally illegal in this country.)

Posted by: Andrew McGuinness | Feb 22, 2006 5:58:18 PM

TW: "why not work to cut the abortion rate?"

I knew some anti-choice person would come out with this at some point or other.

We don't need to increase the birthrate, there are plenty of people in the world, in fact too many.

From an economic point of view it is cheaper to increase immigration - removes the need for years of costly education. From an environmental point of view we should be discouraging people to have children. Women who don't have children should be given a medal.

Abortion is equally the result of male action. Women should only have children they want. Abortion has led to a massive crime reduction by reducing the number of children that would have been badly looked after and/or would have grown up in poverty.

Posted by: Neil Harding | Feb 23, 2006 7:41:51 AM

Thomas Malthus (aka Neil Harding)speaks from the grave:

"We don't need to increase the birthrate, there are plenty of people in the world, in fact too many."

Oh woe, woe, famine pestilence. Flee! flee for your lives, the four horsemen aproacheth..

Neil, might also approve of the chinese one child per family policy, that leads to this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/08/05/wchin05.xml

Which in time leads to this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/4722587.stm

Neil Harding: "From an economic point of view it is cheaper to increase immigration - removes the need for years of costly education."

Yep, a statist would love that solution; 'lets strip the poor countries of some of their brightest and best talents', it would help us in [specifically the UK] (1) disguise the abismal condition of the state education system. (2) Entrench the prevelidged position of the west in the world economomy.

Echoes of imperialist age, funny how the lefties yearn for those things it claims to hate.

To quote one particually odious 'lefty' on Question time some months ago, "We need immigrants to pay for our pensions".

NH: "From an environmental point of view.."

YAWN!

NH: "Women who don't have children should be given a medal."

Then Neil, from you own resources, strike one in 24carat gold. I am sure you will have a lot of childless women queing up for your medal.

NH: "Abortion is equally the result of male action."

ZZZzzzz

NH: "Women should only have children they want."

You know what, that might be the only sensible thing you have written.

It is a great pity you should dilute the effect by writing such unadulterated drivel as this...

"Abortion has led to a massive crime reduction by reducing the number of children that would have been badly looked after and/or would have grown up in poverty."

Posted by: APL | Feb 23, 2006 10:40:51 AM