Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
.
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
[QUOTE]
You did not rebut the problems caused by the policy. Once again many educated people as you put it, choose not to opt for family planning so being educated or not doesn't assure anything. Many Chinese who can pay the fine for a second or third child say its worth it. The policy is still controversial which means not all Chinese people are happy about it.
[/QUOTE]
If the Chinese government went by people's happiness, they would still be down in the dumps. The "problems" caused by this policy are negligible. The happiness of a few idiots is worth sacrificing for the greater well being of the nation. Long story short, an average person would be much poorer in China right now if they hadn't controlled the population.
[QUOTE]
On population control, the Europeans who seem to make too much noise about the increasing population, actually pay people in some of their own countries to have children. I guess those babies are more environmental friendly and use up lesser resources...
Why do we get fooled so easily?
[/QUOTE]
You know what, I hate people who resort to senseless comparisons once they run out of legitimate points. Let's talk hard facts.
Germany's Population: 81,880,000
Growth Rate: -0.3% (declining)
German GDP: 3.33 Trillion Dollars
Pakistan's Population: 170 Million
Pakistan's Growth Rate: 2.1%
Pakistan's GDP: 161 Billion dollars
European countries like Germany are struggling to bolster their populations because their POPULATIONS ARE DECREASING AND/OR THE WORKFORCE IS DECREASING!
Do you get it? Germany wouldn't be trying to increase it's population if it had 170 million people and a GDP of just 161 Billion. Jeez, you are thick.
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
If the Chinese government went by people's happiness, they would still be down in the dumps. The "problems" caused by this policy are negligible. The happiness of a few idiots is worth sacrificing for the greater well being of the nation. Long story short, an average person would be much poorer in China right now if they hadn't controlled the population.
China’s population control has hardly solved that country’s growing environmental problems. Female infanticide has reached epidemic proportions. There are less earners and more pensioners. I'm sorry but they don't seem negligible to me.
You know what, I hate people who resort to senseless comparisons once they run out of legitimate points. Let's talk hard facts.
Germany's Population: 81,880,000 Growth Rate: -0.3% (declining) German GDP: 3.33 Trillion Dollars
Pakistan's Population: 170 Million Pakistan's Growth Rate: 2.1% Pakistan's GDP: 161 Billion dollars
European countries like Germany are struggling to bolster their populations because their POPULATIONS ARE DECREASING AND/OR THE WORKFORCE IS DECREASING!
Do you get it? Germany wouldn't be trying to increase it's population if it had 170 million people and a GDP of just 161 Billion. Jeez, you are thick.
Okay first, enough of the personal attacks! Let's keep it civilized.
You know what, I hate it when people start comparing extremes to prove their invalid points. UK has a population growth of 0.7 and other countries like Ireland and France also have a considerably high growth rate. Pakistan's population growth rate has also constantly decreased from 1960 onwards till 2010 and it's a 60 yr old country. And let's not forget, these very countries are also at the top of the list when it comes to polluting the environment. The population-control schemes put the blame for climate change on the poorest people in the global South and East- those least responsible for the problem in the first place. What is needed are strategies for building stronger links and collaboration with movements for climate justice in these regions - not draw up plans to reduce their numbers.
Anyway, the point in discussion was, 'population control as the solution to poverty'.
My stand is that population theories have been advanced to explain the existence of poverty, hunger, famine etc while the real sources causing these problems have always been glossed over. Climate change is just the latest in a long list of issues that has been seized on by advocates of population control.
Population control is just a distraction from those real causes. US throwing away enough food every year to feed 200 million adults. The money used in the arms race by so many countries annually. And these are just a few. Why aren't such issues addressed while finding solutions to poverty... all they tell you is to decrease your population rate because we are not going to stop wasting food nor spending less on weapons (Pakistan included).
Is there any country in the world with zero poverty? However Hazrat Umar (AS) did create such a state. Yes there were many other economic reforms made but zakat was a major one of them. The distribution system from the rich to the poor was so effective that at a time there was no one who needed alms. Yes, population decrease might be one strategy for this. But I don't understand why is it so hard to accept that Zakat system was an extremely effective tool in minimizing poverty. Or do you think Islam is altogether outdated in this regard in today's world?
Ps: waoh sorry nomi, this is wayyy off-topic now :@:
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
By the same logic, I should drive a car at 200 km/h because if I'm not meant to die, I won't. I'm invincible until the day comes, right?
In your haste at picking at a comment out of context you may have forgotten to read the rest of my post. The point I was making was about the acceptability of birth control in Islam. The Prophet pbuh said that when the child is meant to be conceived he/she will be, hence using birth control is not against Islam and does not equate to killing off your potential children. If you want to take that as cue to have unprotected sex for the length of your married life then that's your choice.
And yeah, I fully support the Zakat system as a means to eradicate poverty. Simple yet effective if implemented properly, but that will never happen in our capitalist system.
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
my son was born 6 yrs after marriage... 100% planed!
and very often i had to hear from "aunties" bete, dua karo, sab theek ho jae ga!
and i was hainnn... kis cheez ki dua??? there is nothing wrong with us...
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
the argument, that having kids a few years after marriage is somehow better because then you know each other and whether the marriage will last, is such garbage. Which part of the world is the divorce rate the highest? In the west right? They know each other quite well before marriage. Yet this doesn't seem to stop them from divorcing with or without kids. If you are going to divorce, you will do so whether you had kids 5 years after marriage or right after. It really depends on the two people involved and how much they are willing to compromise.
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
the argument, that having kids a few years after marriage is somehow better because then you know each other and whether the marriage will last, is such garbage. Which part of the world is the divorce rate the highest? In the west right? They know each other quite well before marriage. Yet this doesn't seem to stop them from divorcing with or without kids. If you are going to divorce, you will do so whether you had kids 5 years after marriage or right after. It really depends on the two people involved and how much they are willing to compromise.
One of the reasons why the divorce rate is higher in Western countries is because divorce is not a taboo like it is in Eastern countries. There is not enough social pressure on couples to force them to stay together like there is in the East. If they're not happy in their marriage they get divorced. That generally doesn't happen in the East. It doesn't mean people in the East have happier marriages.
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
Okay first, enough of the personal attacks! Let's keep it civilized.
You know what, I hate it when people start comparing extremes to prove their invalid points. UK has a population growth of 0.7 and other countries like Ireland and France also have a considerably high growth rate. Pakistan's population growth rate has also constantly decreased from 1960 onwards till 2010 and it's a 60 yr old country. And let's not forget, these very countries are also at the top of the list when it comes to polluting the environment. The population-control schemes put the blame for climate change on the poorest people in the global South and East- those least responsible for the problem in the first place. What is needed are strategies for building stronger links and collaboration with movements for climate justice in these regions - not draw up plans to reduce their numbers.
Anyway, the point in discussion was, 'population control as the solution to poverty'. My stand is that population theories have been advanced to explain the existence of poverty, hunger, famine etc while the real sources causing these problems have always been glossed over. Climate change is just the latest in a long list of issues that has been seized on by advocates of population control. Population control is just a distraction from those real causes. US throwing away enough food every year to feed 200 million adults. The money used in the arms race by so many countries annually. And these are just a few. Why aren't such issues addressed while finding solutions to poverty... all they tell you is to decrease your population rate because we are not going to stop wasting food nor spending less on weapons (Pakistan included).
Is there any country in the world with zero poverty? However Hazrat Umar (AS) did create such a state. Yes there were many other economic reforms made but zakat was a major one of them. The distribution system from the rich to the poor was so effective that at a time there was no one who needed alms. Yes, population decrease might be one strategy for this. But I don't understand why is it so hard to accept that Zakat system was an extremely effective tool in minimizing poverty. Or do you think Islam is altogether outdated in this regard in today's world?
Ps: waoh sorry nomi, this is wayyy off-topic now :@:
First of all, you have failed to rebut my point about European countries. Also, there is ONE HELL OF A DIFFERENCE between a growth rate of 0.7% and 2.1%. And remember the rates are in percentages. It's 0.7% of *Britain's *population and 2.1% of *Pakistan's. *Since the population of Pak is already so high, the increase is enormous. And what about the environment? You suggesting that industries be scrapped just to save the environment. Global warming only compounds the problems of population growth. Even without it, the problems would be enormous. It's a secondary factor. And sorry lady, but Allah SWT has blessed me with a lot of things and I'm gonna use them, ozone or no ozone.
Coming to your second point, my mistake. I should have realized sooner that you were one of the people who live in Utopia. I will take your word for it that the US is throwing away food to feed 200 million adults. Is it your food they are throwing away? No, it's theirs. They can damn well do what they want with it. It's not their responsibility to give their left-overs to sustain huge masses of people in countries like Pakistan.
And the arms race. THe US spends almost 700 billion on defense. Why? And now read this slowly:
They can afford to and its their money so they do what they want with it.
You get that? But let me ask you, why does Pakistan spend so much money on the army? We sure as hell can't afford that. Your ideas may sound good on paper, girl, but they doesn't work in the real world. Pop control on the other hand works, as China has already proven.
And yeah, today economic don't work the way they did 1500 years ago. There, I said it. Now sue me.
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
One of the reasons why the divorce rate is higher in Western countries is because divorce is not a taboo like it is in Eastern countries. There is not enough social pressure on couples to force them to stay together like there is in the East. If they're not happy in their marriage they get divorced. That generally doesn't happen in the East. It doesn't mean people in the East have happier marriages.
LOL I was just about to give this argument after I finished the response to PakWoman, but you beat me to it :D
Agreed 110%.
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
According to a report, if only 52 of the richest people of the world start giving 2.5 % (the prescribed zakat amount) of their wealth in charity, the whole world's poverty can be eradicated. And poverty is the root cause of many problems in Pakistan (i'm not saying it's the only major problem of course).
If zakat was implemented it would work, but guess what? It's not, and that means people can and should be making educated decisions regarding their families and surroundings!
Plenty of people don't intend or plan to have their children but they come as surprises, do you think they are going to kill them or commit abortion? No, they have their children and love them and raise them!
You want to get pregnant on your wedding night and think you're doing the world a favor, that's your choice but it's silly to put down others who choose to enjoy their life before being bogged down with the responsibility of children.
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
If zakat was implemented it would work, but guess what? It's not, and that means people can and should be making educated decisions regarding their families and surroundings!
Yes, and my point was it 'could' work. It isn't an outdated plan for today.
Plenty of people don't intend or plan to have their children but they come as surprises, do you think they are going to kill them or commit abortion? No, they have their children and love them and raise them!
Yes they do. The issue of population control is a controversial/debatable issue for many today, so I don't know what huge sin did I commit by defending my stance.
You want to get pregnant on your wedding night and think you're doing the world a favor, that's your choice but it's silly to put down others who choose to enjoy their life before being bogged down with the responsibility of children.
No one's forcing you to have unprotected sex on your wedding night either, so you are free to save the world. The OP asked for an opinion and I gave it! Some people wanted to know why I hold such views, I told 'em. I was lead to defend 'em, I tried. It doesn't mean everyone has to do what I think or that I'm trying to put them down by what I want or not want for myself. The religious issues I brought in (only when they were required) are real issues discussed by many Muslims scholars out there. I did not make 'em up.
And most importantly none of it was personally aimed at anyone.
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
the argument, that having kids a few years after marriage is somehow better because then you know each other and whether the marriage will last, is such garbage. Which part of the world is the divorce rate the highest? In the west right? They know each other quite well before marriage. Yet this doesn't seem to stop them from divorcing with or without kids. If you are going to divorce, you will do so whether you had kids 5 years after marriage or right after. It really depends on the two people involved and how much they are willing to compromise.
Saudi Arabia is right up there with a divorce rate comparable to the USA (around 60%) so this whole east v west, love v arranged thing when it comes to 'successful' marriages is a myth (and one that desi aunties esp love to throw around lol) and as has already been pointed out lower rates of divorce in countries like India and Pakistan tend to have a lot to do with social stigma, dependency on the husband etc. as much as anything else..
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
One of the reasons why the divorce rate is higher in Western countries is because divorce is not a taboo like it is in Eastern countries. There is not enough social pressure on couples to force them to stay together like there is in the East. If they're not happy in their marriage they get divorced. That generally doesn't happen in the East. It doesn't mean people in the East have happier marriages.
Saudi Arabia is right up there with a divorce rate comparable to the USA (around 60%) so this whole east v west, love v arranged thing when it comes to 'successful' marriages is a myth (and one that desi aunties esp love to throw around lol) and as has already been pointed out lower rates of divorce in countries like India and Pakistan tend to have a lot to do with social stigma, dependency on the husband etc. as much as anything else..
I was addressing an argument made by several people in this thread. According to them, you should only have kids once you are sure you are compatible with each other and that the marriage will last. By this logic, you should never have kids because apparently knowing each other well doesn't seem to prevent divorces. This is quite apparent from the high divorce rate in the west despite people knowing each other and living together for ages before deciding to marry and having kids. The reason why divorce rates are low in eastern countries doesn't have an effect on my stand.
p.s. as an aside, deeba i find that 60% figure quite hard to believe.
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
^ It's not hard to believe when u realise it's according to their own figures and u take into account polygny etc..
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
One of the reasons why the divorce rate is higher in Western countries is because divorce is not a taboo like it is in Eastern countries. There is not enough social pressure on couples to force them to stay together like there is in the East. If they're not happy in their marriage they get divorced. That generally doesn't happen in the East. It doesn't mean people in the East have happier marriages.
Kinda agree but not completely.
One can argue, how happy really divorced people are?
Is this the only reason why divorce rate high that it is not a taboo?
What are the key reasons for divorce with respect to different cultures and areas?
Do people really know each other while dating?
**
And can ANYONE really predict what a person will be after marriage despite dating?**
etc.
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
since thread is ruined already i am waiting for ‘statistical evidence’ on respective stances…
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
OK.
On topic:
It all depends on circumstances.'
How long they have known each other,
their age/maturity level,
financial background,
mutual agreement
family makeup
MIL wish ;)
all play part...in weather to have children ealy or later in marriage.
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
^^ Haan ji,l yeh MIL ki wishes bohot zaroori hoti hain! :D
Re: Delaying having kids after marriage for few years?
^Ji Haan! Sahi Kaha.
:Nods like saadat Mand boy: