Creepy..I read that link before I posted this thread. It does not say that there was a rise in the birth rate during WW2..it says that there was a significant rise in births, indeed a baby boom, after the war. Sure this must mean that people felt it safer to wait to have children until after the war had ended. If people could do that in the 1940's, then surely people in Syria could do it in the 2000's. 

I freely admit to being judgmental about this, and a lot of other areas where suffering is caused by people being irresponsible or selfish. When these images are beamed into my living room during news broadcasts, showing the appalling suffering that these children endure,and I can do not one thing to help stop it..it makes me very angry. This war seems interminable, and there are many facets to it and it seems that it isn't going to end any time soon. So surely those people should be preventing more suffering by not having children.

That is simple common sense.

This has been brought home sharply to me in the last few weeks. I have three adult grand daughters, and during debates with them over the years I have said that I wouldn't bring a child into this precarious world. But..on Valentine's Day, one of them presented me with a beautiful great grand daughter, premature, but tiny and perfect. I already love her more than life itself. I  found myself thinking yesterday that if this country were enduring a war, as in Syria, then I would probably wish she had never been born. These mothers in Syria also love their children..so I cannot understand why they would deliberately allow them to be born into suffering. It must be the case that they have no say in the matter.

As for aid to these countries, that is another minefield, and I won't comment on that.