What’s Behind the Declining Fertility Rate?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/opinion/fertility-rates.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “Fertility Rate Again Falls to a Record Low, Confounding Demographers” (news article, May 17):

Just wait, demographers! The recent dismantling of years of progressive policies for preventing unwanted pregnancies — hobbling Planned Parenthood, closing clinics, restricting access to birth control for those most in need of it — will soon turn your graphs around.

As sex education is turned into Abstinence Inc., rest assured that birthrates among those for whom the social safety net has been shredded will soar.

MARIS THATCHER MEYERSONBERKELEY, CALIF.

To the Editor:

There is no need for alarmism over the falling fertility rate in the United States. A smaller, more stable population can mean more resources available for health, education and work force development. And improvements in those realms will undoubtedly lead to greater productivity, which will provide the capital needed to take care of an aging population.

For too long, the very personal choices of individual women have been thought to be fair game for examination and judgment by pundits and politicians alike. It’s time for that to end.

As for determining where the next generation of working Americans will come from, let’s look toward the millions of children in the United States who are trapped in poverty. By tapping into this vast potential resource, we can improve the lives of our fellow citizens and ensure a healthy, productive society for generations to come.

JOHN SEAGER, WASHINGTON

The writer is president of Population Connection.

To the Editor:

Your article surprised me. Not because the well-documented decline is happening, but because demographers reportedly haven’t figured out why.

My response, from deep in the Midwest, is, “Are they totally out of touch with the real world?”

What average woman or man in America now has the income to support as many children as in the past in this age of declining or stagnating wages for the majority, and the quickening demise of the middle class?

Who wants to bring a child into the world whom they have no chance of adequately feeding, clothing, educating or finding time to love and supervise (between gigs, split shifts and the long hours needed to work multiple jobs)?

If the declining fertility rate concerns anyone, he or she needs to commit to putting into place family-supporting wages, and add family-friendly holiday, sick leave, training and retention practices.

Our political and corporate leaders need to stop the ridiculous pretense that “trickle down” economics “raises all boats.” Tax cuts for the rich and corporations benefit the rich. No one else.

MELANIE FOXCROFT, MADISON, WIS.

To the Editor:

There is no great mystery to stemming the decline in the fertility rate: Provide the supports necessary for men as well as women to both work and be parents, like paid maternity and paternity leave; high-quality, affordable day care; and affordable housing.

France and the Scandinavian countries have fertility rates almost at replacement level, thanks to such measures. In addition, companies and academic institutions should reconsider traditional timelines for career development and promotion that conflict with women’s natural fertility.

Promoting egg freezing and other assisted reproductive technologies to circumvent age-related limits on natural fertility is not the answer, as that technology has only moderate success at older ages, is emotionally and financially draining, and has unknown long-term health effects.

Furthermore, pregnancy at older ages, achieved either naturally or with assistance, increases the risk of complications for both women and children.

LINDA G. KAHNWENDY CHAVKIN, NEW YORK

Dr. Kahn is a postdoctoral fellow in the department of pediatrics at New York University School of Medicine. Dr. Chavkin is a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and population and family health at Columbia University.

To the Editor:

Your article gives the driving forces for falling fertility rates, but not the one that is possibly most important.

Some people fear that overpopulation contributes to climate change and much more environmental damage, as well as fearing that it might not be good for a child to be brought into the world at this time.

And many people may find these to be contributing factors in their decisions to limit their family size. Travis Rieder, of the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins, in his book “Toward a Small Family Ethic,” persuasively discusses the ecological costs of having children on an endangered planet.

AUDREY BERNSTEIN, NEW YORK