- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Actually, it seems education is the best contraceptive in the world, not feminism. In countries where women have access to better and higher education, the birth rate drops. A quick look up of "fertility" and "education" on google comes up with numerous studies, especially interesting are the regional case studies, such as in Latin America. I presume no one's arguing that uneducated women are better mothers, or that motherhood should be encouraged by reducing a woman's education. (Ok, nobody but Focus on the Family: http://www.boundless.org/2005/answers/a0001241.cfm)
I won't argue with your assertion that it's men that force women to have more children than they'd like, it's not so much the case in my neck of the woods, but there are definitely areas where that pertains. Where you and I diverge is over who's being selfish: the women who don't desire additional children, or the men that do? As I see it, and numerous surveys have borne this out, women aren't thinking so much of themselves when they opt out of further childbearing. Many women decide against additional children in favor of spending their limited resources on the children they already have. Women reportedly want fewer or no children in order to focus on their relationship with the man in their life. A number of women opt out of having more than two children because of concerns over overpopulation. The only thing interesting I see in these responses is that you hear the exact same things from men as well.
But if we're going to consider the benefits to the woman opting out of additional or any childbearing, how about her lifespan? Childbirth is risky business, even in the West. Then there's the hit her career takes. Having a child means less income over the course of her lifetime, a factor I'd think of in terms of the increased financial burden on any partner in the picture and costs to previous children. Furthermore, we're not neccesarily talking about wealthy female executives, the majority of women are in the lower wage rungs and have little legal protection over child based discrimination, which still happens. Her family, eager father included, may be getting by all right without a child, but what would happen if she lost her job over getting pregnant?
At any rate, Brightstar, you don't need a woman whether conservative, liberal, domestic or foreign to be a father to three children. Adoption is a reasonable, ethical option that takes a tragedy and turns it around. Or is the matter less about having a family including three children than something else? Call me crazy, but myself and my mate don't understand the imperative that our child share our DNA. (Our current, first, last, and only pregnancy was a bit of a happy surprise, we're getting sterilized when it's over, and otherwise we would have adopted. If we decide to enlarge our family later, we plan to adopt an older child, probably a girl with a cleft lip from China, as I was born with a cleft lip and can't understand the treatment they receive for it.) Or think of it this way: does your family have any history of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, schizophrenia, hypoglycemia, Tay-Sachs, Downs, autism, dwarfism or so on? If so, then it's not as if your particular DNA is above average and especially vital to propagate. The sword cuts both ways, we're both badly hypoglycemic with average medical histories in our family, our DNA isn't anything special either.
With the population as it is and resources thinning for everyone, I'd rather think in terms of all of us being human than one or two being my "blood" and everyone else being "them."
