Fertility problems in the 21st century

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Its not about maturity, its about quality of life. Having a child is a burden on your quality of life, and more so (usually) at 20 than 30. This has become more of an issue today, because our quality of life has increased, including our expectations.

Example: Teenage pregnancies in western countries usually happen in poorer communities with lower standard of life.

Also 'If you women were more mature, you'd have wanted a baby at 20', isnt that exactly what some posters were saying about men earlier in the thread? Word for word almost.

[Iskaral Pust]

This is rather an unhelpful attitude. You want kids, so just suck it up, bitchez? It's not an "entitlement mentality" to expect equitable treatment by society, and the fact remains that parenthood - which, regardless of individual choice, is essential for any society - disproportionately disadvantages women. The whole "kids or career" choice is not one that men have to make. It's not a matter of just yourself and your own kids, it's a matter of a huge segment of society that are disadvantaged because of the way the job market is set up. Why is this not grounds for thinking about a restructure? Notice I'm not talking about any pointless cosmetic solutions like "pay everyone exactly the same amount regardless of how long they've worked here", but a more fundamental approach that includes better childcare provision, more paternity leave (and more encouragement for fathers to step up and do their share) and a more reasonable attitude towards career breaks.

I'd like to meet you halfway on this (although you might not think it's half way). I do think that the availability of child care has a strong social benefit and then mothers can choose whether to use childcare or to be SAHM. It boosts overall economic productivity to not force productive people, mostly women, out of the workforce for several years. Some paternity leave would be nice too, although employers bear the brunt of such programs (in lost productivity, even if govt provides the "pay" while on leave) and since we are no longer in the era of lifetime jobs with a single employer, it is harder for an employer to benefit from long periods of leave that happen just a few times in your entire life.

My wife, despite the massive sacrifice involved (career and sanity), wanted to be a SAHM because we both think the devoted attention in formative years is much better than group childcare. But I'm also glad that we could choose to use childcare instead if it really wasn't working out. I realize that many women in the US can flat out not afford childcare and so motherhood can become an economic trap.

But I disagree that parenthood is necessary for society. Our planet is over-populated and we are impossibly straining resources. More and more people will choose not to have kids. It's a hallmark of developing societies: the birth rate declines. We're no longer in the 1950s where everyone has multiple kids. If you choose to have kids, then every consideration you receive (govt subsidies for child care, child health care, public education, single mother welfare systems, etc, etc) is partially financed by tax payers who chose not to have kids. Why should they pay for your choice? It's no longer a question of pooling costs that we all experience since more and more people will choose not to be parents. The pooling breaks down because it is no longer equitable to all.

Parenthood does disproportionately affect women. No question at all. Fortunately women have many contraceptive and family planning choices available to them. So women should be especially careful about their reproductive choices, including the father of any offspring. Whether or not to have kids is a decision with a huge impact on your life (as is the number of kids, for those that do). It's just not fair or reasonable to expect others to shoulder the cost of your decision.

Anyone who thinks they should be able to have all the kids they want and not give up anything relative to those without kids is delusional. How can you expect to have something that requires so much effort, and gives so much value, without it carrying a significant cost. You're not just looking for a free lunch, you're looking for a free lifetime buffet. There is a huge cost to having kids. There has to be. They need a massive amount of time, energy and money to bring up. That has to come out of the "pocket" of the parents. You can't expect others to pay that for you.

[Datepalm]

But I disagree that parenthood is necessary for society. Our planet is over-populated and we are impossibly straining resources. More and more people will choose not to have kids. It's a hallmark of developing societies: the birth rate declines.

Consider european countries with shrunken birthrates though, (not to mention former USSR states which have actively shrunk) and their programs to bring them back up - or suffer the economic consequences of an aging, unproductive population. From everything i've read, its not nearly as simple as less people=good.

Anyhow, no one in the thread is advocating the overthrow of the capitalist system (ok, maybe me. But I always do that.) but you're supporting the inherent sexism that a system, in its public policy and private companies, that dosen't make any allowances for children creates. (And what there is is targeted at helping men. And hurts the young and/or less wealthy more. )

[Lord of Oop North]

But, but, if all of you of the Anglo-Saxon Protestant Culture stop reproducing, civilization as we know it will be destroyed!! The horror!

You will have your standard of living, BUT AT WHAT COST!?!

Please, O' Pale Ones, I speak on behalf of every secondary race on the planet. We need you! Don't go away!

[Datepalm]

I'm the oldest of four, and that isn't economical for many families anymore. Twelve children certainly went the way of the small family farm. Looking around at all my cousins, zero kids is the norm, one or two is the max, on both sides. No one has three.

2-4 kids is still the norm here, and thats not going into wacky religeous birthrates. I know plenty of people of my age with 3-4 siblings, and three kids was more common than 2 in my school. (and I grew up in the frigging Milton Keynes of Israel) - and I don't think we have a significantly lower standard of living, emploment, education or competetiveness than the US. The system in place here isn't that good, and still discriminates heavily towards women, but "kids are uneconomical" isn't an unbreakable rule.

Huh. I'm coming off as really pro-natal in this thread. I'm really not.

[Altherion]

But I disagree that parenthood is necessary for society.

I disagree. Parenthood is necessary for society -- a society where the old greatly outnumber the young is not going to be a pleasant place for either group because the old will have to work pretty much until they're incapacitated and the young are still going to need to devote resources to supporting the old. Of course, it is entirely possible that the parents would be immigrants, but the population has to be somehow maintained.

Our planet is over-populated and we are impossibly straining resources.

It is overpopulated in some places and very sparsely populated in others. For instance, China and the US have the same geographic area, but China has more than 4 times as many people. And we are not impossibly straining resources. We currently have the capacity to produce more food than is necessary to feed even double our population. We are using up energy at an unsustainable rate, but this is not an unsolvable problem.

It's a hallmark of developing societies: the birth rate declines.

It declines up to a point and then either stays there or increases. The total 2008 fertility rate in the US is the highest since 1971.

[DesertWolf]

I don't like fertility treatments or alternatives such as surrogacy, because there are so very many orphaned children in the world that could be adopted as opposed to cranking out a new strain on the Earth's already limited resources. At six billion people we are already living above our means, and they are projecting that we stabilise somewhere around nine billion. Is biological parenthood really what's important, or do you want to be a mother or father? Siring children is a far cry from being a parent, and a biological connection to the child won't really affect your ability to be a mother or father.

You don't have any sort of right to beget children, so I don't understand quite why it should be covered by UHC. In most cases, society will eventually benefit from any child being born, they becoming productive members of society and whatnot, but a society would also reap those benefits if the child was adopted rather than born to those particular parents. I would much rather see adoption sponsored by the state than I would fertility treatments.

This. Well said.

[mcbigski]

Consider: in the 1970s, most people were able to get a middle class job with a high school education. Today, a college degree of some sort is required to get what used to just require a high school education. Now, the bar has been raised so that a Master's degree is required where a college education used to suffice (this is definitely true of accounting - a Master's degree or a dual degree in a related field - which virtually necessitates 6 years of study - is now a requirement for a CPA license in nearly every state).

That might be true for purely white collar jobs, but much less so for hands on stuff, which is also much harder to outsource to India (or wherever) by the way. And I know a lot fewer poor plumbers than poor communications majors.

[Silverstar]

Also 'If you women were more mature, you'd have wanted a baby at 20', isnt that exactly what some posters were saying about men earlier in the thread? Word for word almost.

Not really. It was more "you'd decide you wanted kids before your partner's fertility had declined to a point where she probably needed fertility treatment", which isn't the same as having kids at 20 at all.

[FairyIdiot]

Well, yes, but, um, no. None of that addresses the social incentives for men to have kids later. We have a cultural narrative that says "fellas, once you have kids then your carefree days are over, put it off as long as you can!" while simultaneously trying to persuade women to have kids sooner. While there are some very good biological reasons for this, it does rather give off some rather unpleasant social messages, like "younger women can just marry older guys (fnar fnar)" and "men, your precious freedom is worth a lot more than your risk of having a Down's Syndrome kid"...

Interesting points, i agree with you there. Put it off as long as you can lol

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Consider european countries with shrunken birthrates though, (not to mention former USSR states which have actively shrunk) and their programs to bring them back up - or suffer the economic consequences of an aging, unproductive population. From everything i've read, its not nearly as simple as less people=good.

Anyhow, no one in the thread is advocating the overthrow of the capitalist system (ok, maybe me. But I always do that.) but you're supporting the inherent sexism that a system, in its public policy and private companies, that dosen't make any allowances for children creates. (And what there is is targeted at helping men. And hurts the young and/or less wealthy more. )

So what would you have in its stead?

[Mentat]

Not really. It was more "you'd decide you wanted kids before your partner's fertility had declined to a point where she probably needed fertility treatment", which isn't the same as having kids at 20 at all.

But that's so silly. "Your partner" is not something you get asigned for life when you're 10 and have to live with for ever after, and thus decide at what exact age you want to have children with. Plus, having kids in the responsible way is a decision both members of a couple should take together and agree upon. One of my best friends is 29, and he dates a girl who is 31. He'd quite like kids, but she doesn't really want them right now. Does this make her immature? Or just an adult who can make decisons for herself?

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Its not immaturity, its standard of life!

Also silverstar, what someone actually said earlier read a bit like this: "you'd decide you wanted kids before your partner's fertility had declined to a point where she probably needed fertility treatment. This is because guys dont grow up, take responsibility and become real men like in ages past.'

:thumbsup:

[Datepalm]

So what would you have in its stead?

An overthrow of the capitalist system, duh.

Less seriously - equal leave for both parents after the birth of a child. Work-from-home allowances where relevant. Flexibility in the leave and flexible working hours for parents, off the top of my head. (Note, i'm not even starting down the dark road to sicialism and suggesting raising the government compensation or anything of the sort. This is all stuff that should be benefitting private companies, as they get to keep their employees more productive.)

The best scheme I think I ever heard about was about a swiss couple someone knew - after they had a child, both parents worked evey other week from home for a year - so there was always someone with the child, they both shared the responsibility and the bonding and so on, both stayed more productive than if either had taken a large chunk of time simply off. (I think the weeks at home were covered by parental leave anyway though.) This scheme isn't going to be right for every couple, but the simple fact they both got leave, and worked for companies who were willing to be flexible, allowed them to come up with something that worked. Put those kind of conditions into place, and a lot more people will be able to do the same.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

An overthrow of the capitalist system, duh.

Less seriously - equal leave for both parents after the birth of a child. Work-from-home allowances where relevant. Flexibility in the leave and flexible working hours for parents, off the top of my head. (Note, i'm not even starting down the dark road to sicialism and suggesting raising the government compensation or anything of the sort. This is all stuff that should be benefitting private companies, as they get to keep their employees more productive.)

The best scheme I think I ever heard about was about a swiss couple someone knew - after they had a child, both parents worked evey other week from home for a year - so there was always someone with the child, they both shared the responsibility and the bonding and so on, both stayed more productive than if either had taken a large chunk of time simply off. (I think the weeks at home were covered by parental leave anyway though.) This scheme isn't going to be right for every couple, but the simple fact they both got leave, and worked for companies who were willing to be flexible, allowed them to come up with something that worked. Put those kind of conditions into place, and a lot more people will be able to do the same.

What i meant to say was, what would you have instead without losing countries a lot of money?

I'm not a capitalist btw, but the reality is that our societies will always be ruled by money, so i'm not sure how you'd manage to change the system.

[Datepalm]

What i meant to say was, what would you have instead without losing countries a lot of money?

? As several people have pointed out in the thread, having a too-low birthrate will lose countries a lot of money. Babies are in the national interest in particular (Nevermind the personal, and certainly not in that of employers.)

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Only in the very long term. Governments refuse to think in the long-term (as well as businesses, apparantly) because it doesnt effect them. Creating a social structure for young working women to have children doesnt benefit them. I'm pessimistic.

[Datepalm]

Only in the very long term. Governments refuse to think in the long-term (as well as businesses, apparantly) because it doesnt effect them. Creating a social structure for young working women to have children doesnt benefit them. I'm pessimistic.

Half the countries of europe are currently feeling the effects of low birth rates, eastern europe in particular from just the past 20 years, and many have strong (if not always effective) pro-natal policies in place. Its individuals, not governments, who are choosing to have less children - for a variety of societal reasons, not least amongst them the economic difficulty and personal career sacrifice - of women.

[Guest Raidne]

My husband made a great point just now - we should encourage IVF over other fertility treatments, and use state funds to do so if necessary. IVF is very expensive. Fertility injections are much cheaper. However, fertility injections lead to multiples, and IVF will not, and reducing the number of multiple births is a good thing, particularly when the people having them are self-selected to be the people least likely to be able to afford multiple children at once. I think that's taking a very realistic approach to the issue. Some states already require health insurance providers to cover IVF.

On the larger issue, that of somehow getting people to have kids when they're not likely to need fertility treatments - what is that age range anyway? I thought it was 35 and under, but people in this thread seem to think it's under 30. Getting people to have kids before they're 35 is probably not really all that difficult, but trying to get people to have kids before they're 30 would be tough, given that, for example, my husband and I weren't even out of school until we were 28, and it'll be at least one, probably two more years before we're in a financial position to have kids. In the other emotional sense, I'm nowhere near actually wanting children yet. I've never been sure whether this is a "maturity" thing, or if it's just that I'm never going to want to have kids.

[Zoë Sumra]

IVF is very expensive. Fertility injections are much cheaper. However, fertility injections lead to multiples, and IVF will not...

In theory, sure, but in practice, IVF does lead to an increased rate of multiples, due to the practice of implanting multiple embryos. Maybe this is just the UK.