Who will you vote for? Australian political parties (1 Viewer)

[katie tully]

It isn't possible they both play a part? I think availability of employment will also play a part. I just can't for the life of me imagine any mother or father I know personally who would let hell or high water come between them and their child and I also can't imagine that all these people who are having children at a later age these days will for the large part be satisfied with just one.

In 2002, the median age of all women giving birth was 30.2 years, the highest on record according to figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) today. The median age of fathers was 32.5 years.

There were 251,000 births registered in Australia during 2002. This was 4,600 births (1.9%) more than 2001 and the highest since 1997.

The 2002 total fertility rate was 1.75 babies per woman. This rate has been relatively stable since 1998, ranging between 1.73 and 1.76 babies per woman. The Australian total fertility rate remained lower than that of the United States of America (2.1 babies per woman) and New Zealand (2.0), but higher than that of the United Kingdom (1.6), Japan (1.3) and many European countries such as Germany (1.4), Greece (1.3) and Italy (1.2).

Women aged 30-34 years experienced the highest age-specific fertility rate, with 111 babies per 1,000 women, while women aged 25-29 years experienced the second highest (104 babies per 1,000 women).

Fertility of 20-24 year old women has continued to decline. Over the past two decades fertility for this age group has almost halved, from 104 babies per 1,000 women in 1982 to 56 babies in 2002.

Of the states and territories, the Northern Territory recorded the highest total fertility rate (2.28 babies per woman), while the Australian Capital Territory recorded the lowest (1.59).

Victoria recorded the largest increase in births in 2002 (up 2,900 over the number registered in 2001), followed by New South Wales (up 2,000). South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland also recorded more births in 2002 than 2001, while there were fewer births in Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

Australia's total fertility rate increased to 1.81 babies per woman in 2006, up from 1.79 in 2005, according to figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) today.

The increase can be largely attributed to a higher number of births for women aged 30 to 39 years.

There were 265,900 births registered in Australia in 2006. This is the second highest number of births ever (the highest was in 1971 - 276,400 births).

The median age of all mothers who gave birth in 2006 was 30.8 years, while fathers had a median age of 33.1 years. Both of these are the highest median ages on record.

Over recent years the total fertility rate has increased for most States and Territories. Tasmania's total fertility rate in 2006 was 2.12 babies per woman, the highest for this State since 1975. Western Australia's total fertility rate was 1.94 babies, the highest since 1988.

Women aged 30-34 years had the highest fertility rate in all States and Territories with the exception of Tasmania and the Northern Territory where it was women aged 25-29.

There were 12,500 births registered in Australia during 2006 where at least one parent was identified as Indigenous.

More details are in Births, Australia 2006 (cat. no. 3301.0) available free from the ABS website <www.abs.gov.au>. Regional, State and Territory information is also available on the website.

Nearly half of all mothers (47 per cent) who registered a baby in 1999 were aged 30 years and over, according to figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) today. This was up from one quarter (24 per cent) in 1979.

By 1999, women aged 30-34 years had overtaken those aged 25-29 in having the highest fertility rate (108.5 babies per 1,000 women). The age of women having a baby has steadily increased over time. A mother's median age (where half of mothers were below and half above that age) has increased from 26.5 years in 1979 to 29.7 in 1999, the highest since the beginning of the twentieth century. ABS projections assume the median age of mothers will reach 31.2 years by 2008.

The number of births registered in Australia during 1999 (248,900) declined marginally compared to 1998, reflecting the continuation of declining fertility in Australia. This fall in fertility is associated with the decline in the number of births to young women. On 1999 rates, a woman can expect to have 1.75 babies in her life, well below the level needed for a woman to replace herself and her partner (2.1 births per woman). Australia's fertility has been at below replacement level since 1976. Currently, it is lower than that of the United States of America (2.0) and New Zealand (1.9) but above the levels of Canada (1.5), Japan (1.4) and many European countries such as Italy (1.2).

Of all births registered in 1999, 43 per cent were first births, 32 per cent were second births and the remaining (25 per cent) were third or higher births. If these trends were to continue, it is estimated that over a quarter (26 per cent) of all women would remain childless at the end of their reproductive life.

Women living in the capital cities have lower fertility than those living in the State/Territory balances. On 1997-99 rates, Melbourne had the lowest fertility rate of all the capital cities followed by Adelaide, Canberra, Perth and Brisbane. Women living in remote areas of Australia can expect to have between 2.1 and 2.4 babies per woman, compared to those who lived in areas of high accessibility (1.76).

Four per cent of total births were identified as Indigenous, with the fertility of Indigenous women estimated to be at least 2.1 babies per woman. Indigenous mothers having a baby (median age of 24.4 years) were younger than all mothers (29.7 years). Indigenous women in the Northern Territory had the highest fertility at 2.5 babies per woman. Indigenous babies in 1997 weighed less than other babies, with an average birth weight of 3,146 grams compared to 3,356 grams for all babies.

Australia's fertility rate declined to 1.73 babies per woman, and the median age of mothers of newborns reached 30 years in 2001, according to figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) today.

Victoria had the highest median age of mothers at 30.7 years, followed by the Australian Capital Territory (30.4 years) and South Australia (30.3 years). The lowest median age of mothers giving birth in 2001 was in the Northern Territory (27.9 years) followed by Tasmania (29.1 years).

The total fertility rate decreased to 1.73 babies per woman in 2001, compared to 1.75 the previous year. Over the 25 years from 1976 the fertility rate in Australia has remained below 2.1, the level required for a woman to replace herself and her partner.

Australia's fertility rate is lower than the United States of America (1.9) and New Zealand (2.0), but higher than Canada (1.6), Japan (1.3) and many European countries such as Italy (1.2).

The fertility rate varied substantially across the states and territories, from 1.51 babies per woman in the Australian Capital Territory to 2.26 in the Northern Territory.

Of the capital cities, Melbourne had the lowest fertility (1.54 babies per woman averaged over the three years, 1999 to 2001), followed by Adelaide and Canberra (1.61). Overall, women living in Australia's major cities (69% of all women aged 15-49 years) had the lowest fertility rate (1.65) while women living in remote areas (2.27) and very remote areas (2.28) had the highest fertility rates.

Women aged 30-34 years continued to have the highest age-specific fertility rate in 2001 (107 babies per 1,000 women), slightly lower than the rate in 2000 (111 babies). Teenage fertility increased marginally between 2000 and 2001, from 17 babies per 1,000 women in 2000 to 18 in 2001.

The number of births registered in 2001 declined by 3,200 or 1% compared to 2000, from 249,600 to 246,400. Western Australia experienced the largest decline (4%) in the number of births registered, followed by South Australia, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory (each 3%). Tasmania, the Northern Territory and Queensland were the only states/territories to experience an increase in the number of births registered in 2001 when compared to 2000.

Statistically, we're waiting longer to have babies and we're having less of them.

 

[katie tully]

I don't think having 3 children would be significantly more satisfying than one or two, and it would place a much higher burden on freedom, independence, finance.

This is the perspective of most Australians.

Pipe dream.

If you look at every generation in the past, that we have knowledge of, each generation has looked to improve on the lifestyle of their elders. I really don't see our generation stopping and going 'I'd like less', nor do I see that for our kids.

 

[Lentern]

- How should you know? You're the idiot proposing such things. Tell me what monsoonal areas are good for growing? If anything, it'd be seasonal. We already have monsoonal/seasonal areas in Australia, why don't we utilise these for sustainability before we go and deforest other areas of the world?

- The earths population has never been 6 billion and growing before, either. And when did these materialistic phases occur? Before or after the Industrial Revolution? Do you honestly think that this phase of materialism will die down somewhere and that the rest of the world will follow?

Do you realise that, where we are today ... there is no going back to a more 'simple' time? Each generation has tried (and has) managed to out do its predecessors (in terms of technology, possessions, etc)... Do you really think it's going to stop?

- I'll find the article, but people in Africa who are starving aren't having kids coz they like kids. They're having kids because they've got no access to, or understanding of contraception. Do you think Starvin Marvin really wants 6 kids she can't feed, just because she likes kids? Does she want the HIV as well, because I'm quite sure if they fully understood the transmission and pathology of HIV they wouldn't be popping out AIDS babies either.

-I can understand fundamental principles that doesn't mean I've got a ten point plan to put them into action.

-The Baby boom perhaps? I don't pretend that we aren't foreve going to be striving for better technology and so forth but I'm confident there will come a time where having the simple family life will be covetted again.

-I understand what you're getting at in regards to education, it's about access to birth control basically. I'm begin to come round but still, it seems to mind blowing that something that so recently was so priceless would be passed up by the majority.

Say you are right and the world will plataue, and then decline how long do we reckon the slide is going to be before we begin to go up again? will we ever go up again or is mankind going to face another populate or perish position?

 

[Lentern]

He's just restricted his posts to "emotional" rants now, don't worry.

You are talking about having children, you cannot separate emotion from that, It would be quite disturbing, dystopian even, if we did get to the stage where we bred, and did not breed in some cases, for the sake of the economic community irrespective of whether we wanted children.

 

[Graney]

Pipe dream.

If you look at every generation in the past, that we have knowledge of, each generation has looked to improve on the lifestyle of their elders. I really don't see our generation stopping and going 'I'd like less', nor do I see that for our kids.

We're working longer hours than any previous generation, we spend less times with our families, we have less time for satisfying, meaningfull recreation.

I think you can change peoples ideas about what's important in life. The big car, big house, pool, trinkets, that everyone is chasing, do they really bring satisfaction commensurate to the time invested in them?

I think a lot of people are mindlessly investing their life energy in purchasing and consuming things that don't really bring them satisfaction.

 

[Lentern]

Statistically, we're waiting longer to have babies and we're having less of them.

I'm not contesting what is the status quo.

 

[katie tully]

-I can understand fundamental principles that doesn't mean I've got a ten point plan to put them into action.

-The Baby boom perhaps? I don't pretend that we aren't foreve going to be striving for better technology and so forth but I'm confident there will come a time where having the simple family life will be covetted again.

-I understand what you're getting at in regards to education, it's about access to birth control basically. I'm begin to come round but still, it seems to mind blowing that something that so recently was so priceless would be passed up by the majority.

Say you are right and the world will plataue, and then decline how long do we reckon the slide is going to be before we begin to go up again? will we ever go up again or is mankind going to face another populate or perish position?

- You obviously don't understand the fundamental principles. By your own admission, you seem to not really care/comprehend the environmental impacts your proposals will have. The more the Earth is in peril, the less fertile its land will become. Then what, do we harvest shit off the moon?

- You're ignoring the factors that contributed to the Baby Boom. The end of the war signaled the end of economic constraints imposed by the Great Depression, and most of the young, virile men were at war.

I think you also underestimate how much financial stability dictates birth rate.

The fertility rate fell from about 6 babies per woman in the mid-nineteenth century(4) to 3.9 in 1901.(5) After a slight rise, probably a catch-up of births postponed during the 1890s Depression, it subsequently declined to 3.1 by 1921 and, associated with the Great Depression, to 2.1 in 1934. After this it increased to a high of 3.5 in 1961 before commencing the decline to the current level.

Definitely in the 1920s/30s, family was a hugely important aspect of society, yet the Great Depression is marked with a drastic decline in birth rate.

Why? Did the desire for children drop, or did people put their desire for a family on hold until they could afford to sustain a family?

- When I find that other article for you, I'll also post the one where it was discovered impoverished Africans actually believe condoms spread HIV. In South Africa it was reported that women were putting razor blades in their vagina's in the event they were raped. Again, education is low and the understanding of transmission and pathology of diseases is limited.

 

[katie tully]

http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Jou...tu-N-E/JHE-23-1-065-08-1551-Akpotu-N-E-Tt.pdf

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2873,-Condoms-wont-change-HIV-rates,The-Australian
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,485715,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

 

[Lentern]

- You obviously don't understand the fundamental principles. By your own admission, you seem to not really care/comprehend the environmental impacts your proposals will have. The more the Earth is in peril, the less fertile its land will become. Then what, do we harvest shit off the moon?

- You're ignoring the factors that contributed to the Baby Boom. The end of the war signaled the end of economic constraints imposed by the Great Depression, and most of the young, virile men were at war.

I think you also underestimate how much financial stability dictates birth rate.

Definitely in the 1920s/30s, family was a hugely important aspect of society, yet the Great Depression is marked with a drastic decline in birth rate.

Why? Did the desire for children drop, or did people put their desire for a family on hold until they could afford to sustain a family?

- When I find that other article for you, I'll also post the one where it was discovered impoverished Africans actually believe condoms spread HIV. In South Africa it was reported that women were putting razor blades in their vagina's in the event they were raped. Again, education is low and the understanding of transmission and pathology of diseases is limited.

Wow, ok, I'm sold. I'm dissapointed but the emotions and the fashion which I am convinced will forever play a part do not/will not play a big enough part to buck the trend.

The only thing I'm not convinced of is the merit of become dependant on the import/export game. Doing so would effectively mean more efficiency. We've allready long since left the days of autarkies, the principle of developing by and large what you are best at developing and then selling it, buying with the profits things you aren't so good at developing still seems a neccessity, especially in light of your "we all want to beat our parents" theory.

 

[Graney]

Wow, ok, I'm sold. I'm dissapointed but the emotions and the fashion which I am convinced will forever play a part do not/will not play a big enough part to buck the trend.

They are your opinion on emotions, but I would say they are not emotions shared by the vast majority of Australians.

When are you planning on having 3-5 children btw?

 

[katie tully]

We could only really become dependent on the export/import game if we evaluated the way we farm in Australia.

Farming cotton in the wheat belt of NSW is fucking ridiculous and a waste of water/resources. There is no reason why this can't be done in Northern Australia (where recently it has taken off, due to abundance of water/land).

Not sure what we'll do about the water problem, but increasing population does not seem to fit with our current water crisis. This and we need to become competitive with those shit hole countries. When our dollar = 90 US cents, it's not competitive. We have a lot of land, I don't know why we arent investing in sustainable agriculture/manufacture. Although I think our standard of living/wages is too high to ever compete with say, Asia when it comes to manufacturing.

 

[Lentern]

They are your opinion on emotions, but I would say they are not emotions shared by the vast majority of Australians.

When are you planning on having 3-5 children btw?

Um, at this stage I would very much like to but I think as the time comes closer and I take measure of myself it would really depend on whether or not I thought I would be able to father that many and do a good job at it. At this stage I think I would be but my personality now and my personality a few years down the track could be surprisingly different.

Also it would ofcourse depend upon the mother, I could never pressure someone into raising more children then they want to, the idea of bringing a child into the world that is unwanted by the mother horrifies me.

 

[Lentern]

We could only really become dependent on the export/import game if we evaluated the way we farm in Australia.

Farming cotton in the wheat belt of NSW is fucking ridiculous and a waste of water/resources. There is no reason why this can't be done in Northern Australia (where recently it has taken off, due to abundance of water/land).

Not sure what we'll do about the water problem, but increasing population does not seem to fit with our current water crisis. This and we need to become competitive with those shit hole countries. When our dollar = 90 US cents, it's not competitive. We have a lot of land, I don't know why we arent investing in sustainable agriculture/manufacture. Although I think our standard of living/wages is too high to ever compete with say, Asia when it comes to manufacturing.

I would have thought it was in the interest of western countries to bark up the technology tree when it comes to the import/export game. no?

 

[katie tully]

Personally I hope we vest some more time and money into health science (cures, pharmaceutics, etc), but then again I'm just bias and I want a guaranteed job, k thx

 

[ASNSWR127]

You are talking about having children, you cannot separate emotion from that, It would be quite disturbing, dystopian even, if we did get to the stage where we bred, and did not breed in some cases, for the sake of the economic community irrespective of whether we wanted children.

really?? I thought it was 'our duty to the party'??

people on this website often get reality and over-hyper ideas mixed up it is a thing to deal with or just not bother replying to.

 

[boris]

I'll use me as an example.

I've got one kid, 2 in December. I'd like to have another one, if only for him to have a play mate. In reality, I could get pregnant tomorrow and pop out another one in 9 months. My desire to maintain/build income, finish uni and keep my current lifestyle overrides my desire to have another child.

Do not listen, this is a blatant lie.

You dont want more cos the one you have is a little homo cunt.

 

[katie tully]

he hates you with passion, this pretty much makes him the best baby ever

 

[boris]

he loves me. in a sick weird way.

Edit: ANYWAY back to the topic, the population increases when food supply does. Food supply isn't going to increase until you cunts start paying farmers money instead of sticks and dirt etc. lol elise was harvesting until 10:30 last night, hilarious.

 

[katie tully]

dont tell any1
but

nsw health has just ordered massive job cuts of frontline staff (i.e. nurses) within the next week

dont get sick guyz!

 

[boris]

derr i already told everyone.

Oh but just last week the nsw health said they werent cutting any jobs because thats the last thing they want to do because they are already massively understaffed