But they do weigh on those considering marriage. Excluding the infertile I think we can assume that most here believe marriage and children are inseparable. Therefore, one has to consider “Am I ready for children?” before saying I do. The extreme end of that is trying to answer “yes” before seriously looking for a spouse.The aguments against teen pregnancy do not apply to married adults. But lots of people think they do.
Yes, but I am thinking of the broader culture. Not just Protestants but the nonreligious.But they do weigh on those considering marriage. Excluding the infertile I think we can assume that most here believe marriage and children are inseparable. Therefore, one has to consider “Am I ready for children?” before saying I do. The extreme end of that is trying to answer “yes” before seriously looking for a spouse.
I disagree. One of the main reasons we tell teenagers it’s not time to have babies is financial. Being married doesn’t cure the financial problem.Your thinking presumes that time sorts things out. But, in fact, experience is what parimarly drives the transition into adulthood. The postponement of marriage and childrearing results in a postponemet of emotional maturity.
The aguments against teen pregnancy do not apply to married adults. But lots of people think they do.
Faithful catholics don’t see marriage and children as separate. Those who are commonly called CINO’s or cafeteria Catholics separate marriage and children to some degree or another. Either they want marriage now and intend to have a child or two sometime later or they don’t want a child at all.But they do weigh on those considering marriage. Excluding the infertile I think we can assume that most here believe marriage and children are inseparable. Therefore, one has to consider “Am I ready for children?” before saying I do. The extreme end of that is trying to answer “yes” before seriously looking for a spouse.
Back in the day a large family was an asset. The kids worked the family business, they stayed home or near to home, they banded together to care for their parents in their old age and siblings along with extended family helped each other during times of need.Yes, but I am thinking of the broader culture. Not just Protestants but the nonreligious.
I think Catholics have something to offer the culture on this. And it could be an evangelical opening today as it was in Roman times. (Christians were admired for their families.)
Financial problems are nothing new. People tend to have very short memories but throughout most of human history there was no expectation that raising children required a certain standard of living. Additionally, most young adults are not managing their money wisely often spending it entirely on entertainment. Marriage is the start of curing that. There is a very long list of reasons that umarried teenagers should not have children and financial problems are not at the top of the list.I disagree. One of the main reasons we tell teenagers it’s not time to have babies is financial. Being married doesn’t cure the financial problem.
This is exactly right.And I think the “Are you ready?” thing is complete poppycock. NO ONE is ever ready for a child. It’s one of those things you can never be truly prepared for because it’s such an all encompassing change in who you are, how you think and feel, and how you live. I’ve told people if you wait until you’re ready you’ll never be a parent and if you think you are ready you have no clue what’s about to happen to you!
Back in the day a large family was an asset. The kids worked the family business, they stayed home or near to home, they banded together to care for their parents in their old age and siblings along with extended family helped each other during times of need.
This is an interesting problem. Though not my focus here, it interests me greatly.Now, not so much. A large family may be something people admire, but they simply cannot afford. Children are seen as a burden and expense, not an asset. Unless one is rather well off the perception is that a large family means perpetual poverty. And for a lot of Americans this is true.
Maybe we are focusing on the wrong part. Maybe we should focus on couples, married couples, instead of just women. After all women do not get pregnant by themselves and not all women are married.The arguments against teen pregnancy also apply into early adulthood too. It takes quite a while into adulthood before these things are sorted out, hence the rising age of first child birth and increased portion of women having children later in their fertile years. It is an odd cruelty that a woman’s most fertile years occur when she is least able to care of children.
Well, that’s a topic big enough for its own thread. It is a question of risk vs reward.
Yes, that is the solution. However, marriage itself is becoming less popular, and even among those who marry, children are often considered a burden to be avoided. You can not force unwilling people to become parents. Nations with low fertility rates have in fact offered incentives to married couples to have more children. These efforts have been ineffective.Maybe we are focusing on the wrong part. Maybe we should focus on couples, married couples, instead of just women. After all women do not get pregnant by themselves and not all women are married.
The Church has always had the solution. Married couples who are open to life are the solution to population decrease in First World nations.
The problem, in my experience, is that men are much more content to be beasts than women. It’s not, I think, blaming women to say that women hold the key to marriage and family. (Yes, I know, there are plenty of men who are decent before marriage but, on average, this is the case.)Maybe we are focusing on the wrong part. Maybe we should focus on couples, married couples, instead of just women. After all women do not get pregnant by themselves and not all women are married.
The Church has always had the solution. Married couples who are open to life are the solution to population decrease in First World nations.
I don’t claim to be any expert but I recall reading that the institution of marriage has had it’s ups and downs throughout history.One might note that ever since the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, marriage has been rather downgraded from a normal expectation for most people to something which many fear because of the prevalence of divorce. It is not an easy problem to solve. People have in many cases given up on traditional marriage, believing it to be an impossible dream.
I’m sure that’s true. Right now it’s in a serious “down” stage. This reminds me of Carle Zimmerman’s book “Family & Civilization,” in which he links serious civilizational crises to periods in which the family (and marriage) became pretty much disposable.I don’t claim to be any expert but I recall reading that the institution of marriage has had it’s ups and downs throughout history.
I can’t help but agree. Thanks for that book recommendation.I’m sure that’s true. Right now it’s in a serious “down” stage. This reminds me of Carle Zimmerman’s book “Family & Civilization,” in which he links serious civilizational crises to periods in which the family (and marriage) became pretty much disposable.
While financial problems are nothing new the idea that we not only have to have attained a certain standard of living before having children AND that we also have to make a way for the children to “do better” than we did is pretty new and seems to have caused an awful lot of people to opt out of having children or to seriously limit how many they have.Financial problems are nothing new. People tend to have very short memories but throughout most of human history there was no expectation that raising children required a certain standard of living. Additionally, most young adults are not managing their money wisely often spending it entirely on entertainment. Marriage is the start of curing that. There is a very long list of reasons that umarried teenagers should not have children and financial problems are not at the top of the list.
This is exactly right.
This is an interesting problem. Though not my focus here, it interests me greatly.
There is at least a grain of truth to the claim that reducing fertility improves standards of living.
On the other hand, people are an asset and depopulation is going to be very, very painful for everyone. Japan is leading this but everybody, from the first world to the third world, is following the same path.
It is interesting to speculate what it will take to change this. The culture that solves this will do well in a dying world.
Agreed. The irony is that crashing fertility will result in crashing standards of living. Japan is the poster child for this effect.While financial problems are nothing new the idea that we not only have to have attained a certain standard of living before having children AND that we also have to make a way for the children to “do better” than we did is pretty new and seems to have caused an awful lot of people to opt out of having children or to seriously limit how many they have.
I don’t think that this bears up under statistical scrutiny to date. There seems to be an inverse relationship between government welfare and fertility rates. The more their welfare depends on government, the more people act like perpetual adolescents instead of parents.I think that the nations who have no cost healthcare and college educations for their citizens will fare better than those that do not. Those are two major expenses that make a lot of folk fear parenthood. Besides, it’s in the governments best interest to have a healthy an educated population. Win-Win.
Japan is very interesting because there are so many cultural differences the average non-Japanese person just doesn’t understand. Lately, there seems to have been a huge shift toward asexuality and possible reasons abound. The ones I have heard spoken of the most revolve around the high cost of living, small living spaces, and the expense of properly raising and educating children. Allegedly, a lot of Japanese are opting out because they believe they cannot do right by a spouse and child(ren). I don’t think it’s that simple, but then I am not Japanese.Agreed. The irony is that crashing fertility will result in crashing standards of living. Japan is the poster child for this effect.
I don’t think that this bears up under statistical scrutiny to date. There seems to be an inverse relationship between government welfare and fertility rates. The more their welfare depends on government, the more people act like perpetual adolescents instead of parents.
Some rather important details seriously distort this post.Individual countries’ birth rates don’t matter as much as the global birth rate, which – as of 2012 at least – was 2.47 births per woman.
There are more than 7 billion people on earth. Which means there are probably about 3.5 billion women. And what? Maybe 2 billion of them are of childbearing age?
At 2.47 births per woman, you’re talking about replacing our current population and adding about 1 billion extra people in each generation.
That’s not exactly a small number.
Also, the birth rate in the U.S. has stayed basically flat since the 1970s. It was 1.87 in the late '80s and its 1.88 now.
But were smaller families something they always wanted but just accepted that the martial embrace creates children or did they actually change their mind. In other words did a lack of abc make lower TFR impractical regardless of desire?The interesting thing about TFR is that EVERY SINGLE developed nation on earth (regardless of race) in which contraception is culturally respectable and widely available has a TFR below replacement rate. The global rate is still high only because modern industrial culture hasn’t reached all places yet.
The modern philosophy of life (urban, technological, materialist, consumerist) appears to literally be poisonous to long term human populations. Everywhere it is adopted, native populations begin to decline after just a few generations.
I’m leaning toward people generally wanted smaller families, but accepted that pregnancy was the result of marital relations.But were smaller families something they always wanted but just accepted that the martial embrace creates children or did they actually change their mind. In other words did a lack of abc make lower TFR impractical regardless of desire?
That’s our conventional cultural wisdom talking. The underlying assumption of such talk is that ABC doesn’t change anything of serious note since the fact that sex is tied to making babies is just an irrelevant biological curiosity. Human will is all that really matters.But were smaller families something they always wanted but just accepted that the martial embrace creates children or did they actually change their mind. In other words did a lack of abc make lower TFR impractical regardless of desire?
This question really brings us back to what I wanted to focus on in this thread. Ignoring all the grand political and economic issues we’ve discussed, just thinking in terms of the welfare of the family, are children a blessing or a curse? Is there some optimal number of children for a given family situation (which may be zero or 15)?I’m leaning toward people generally wanted smaller families, but accepted that pregnancy was the result of marital relations.
This question really brings us back to what I wanted to focus on in this thread. Ignoring all the grand political and economic issues we’ve discussed, just thinking in terms of the welfare of the family, are children a blessing or a curse? Is there some optimal number of children for a given family situation (which may be zero or 15)?/
From a happiness perspective the last study seems to suggest that number is 2 or less for most.
medicaldaily.com/parenting-brings-happiness-until-third-child-rollar-coaster-raising-kids-308378
I am generally suspicious of these “happiness” studies. I can easliy believe that when parents are asked “are you happy” that they say “no” more often than singles, at least in the busiest of years. But as discussed before, there are other things that these studies fail to measure such as satisfaction and meaningfulness and on these scores parents with big families tend to rate their lives higher.From a happiness perspective the last study seems to suggest that number is 2 or less for most. medicaldaily.com/parenting-brings-happiness-until-third-child-rollar-coaster-raising-kids-308378