Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Babies Disappear (What to Expect When No One's Expecting)
RealClearBooks ^ | January 14, 2013 | Heather Wilhelm

Posted on 01/15/2013 6:23:44 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o

Do We Love Kids?

Five years ago, on a quiet, leisurely Thursday night, my husband and I sat at the dining room table with a yellow notepad, discussing when we should start having kids.

"See, here's how it works," he said, drawing a graph. "With a dog, you put in a medium amount of work, and you get a medium amount of reward. If you were to, say, purchase a lion, you'd put in a lot of work, but you'd get pretty much no reward - and you might even get eaten. Horrible deal." He paused, drawing a straight line that hit each point directly between the axes. "See? With a kid, you put in a ton of work, but you also get a huge reward for years to come. It's a great deal!"

That was three kids ago, and I can assure you that the "ton of work" part is true. The "huge reward," happily, is also true. Children are a source of great joy, and, as a bonus, often hilarious. This is especially useful to remember when the preschooler gives you pinkeye, the toddler flushes your contact lenses down the toilet, and the baby cooks up a habit of happily, inexplicably, all-out yodeling at 4:30 each morning.

What's strange about our dining room child-planning summit, from a historical perspective, is that we considered it at all. "A few generations ago, people weren't stopping to contemplate whether having a child would make them happy," wrote Jennifer Senior in her much-discussed parenting treatise, "All Joy and No Fun," which ran in New York magazine in 2010. "Having children was simply what you did."

But not, apparently, anymore. Around the globe, fertility rates are plummeting. Countries like Japan and Russia teeter on self-imposed fertility cliffs, facing dramatic population shrinkage and the potential collapse of their welfare states. Europe, with stagnant birth rates, isn't far behind -- and, contrary to popular opinion, neither is America, according to Weekly Standard writer Jonathan V. Last. His new book, What to Expect When No One's Expecting: America's Coming Demographic Disaster, documents a remarkable demographic shift: the global baby un-boom.

Last has good timing. A new Pew report shows the traditionally robust American birthrate falling to record lows. Recent data from the Census Bureau and other studies suggest that the world's population, once a source of widespread hand-wringing, could stop growing within our lifetimes. Meanwhile, in its latest annual report, Planned Parenthood cited a record number of abortions: 333,964 in 2011 alone.

The magic fertility number, if you want the population to remain stable, is 2.1 children per woman. Today, the U.S. fertility rate perches at 2.01. Compared to countries like Poland (1.32), Germany (1.36), and Singapore (1.11), that might seem impressive. But as Last points out in What to Expect, America's buoyant fertility may be a statistical mirage.

Break the numbers down demographically, and the trends seem less promising. For college-educated women, for instance, the fertility rate is roughly 1.6. As education goes up, fertility shrinks. Hispanic women, meanwhile, pull far more than their own weight, with an average rate of 2.73. The problem? Their fertility numbers are falling fast as well, and continue to plummet as immigrant women assimilate into the larger U.S. culture.

For certain environmentalists, misanthropes, and frustrated motorists in Los Angeles, less people on the planet might sound appealing. But as Last argues, "Very Bad Things" have historically accompanied depopulation, including disease, war, and economic disaster. In the case of the United States and Western Europe, the latter seems to be the most pressing. In the case of our other global neighbors (China, Iran, or Russia, for instance), the second-to-last may loom equally large.

When people, particularly males, start talking about how other people should have more babies, certain ladies start freaking out. In December, when Ross Douthat published a New York Times column titled "More Babies, Please," shrieking erupted in various corners of the Internet. "Douthat," wrote one outraged Slate.com commentator, "is clearly irritated at his countrymen and especially his countrywomen for their persnickety desire to enjoy life rather than see it as a dutiful trudge to the grave."

Upon reading this, I must admit, I laughed out loud. Perhaps it was because, just moments before, my toddler had taken a giant mouthful of applesauce, coyly turned my way, and sneezed. But perhaps it was also because, in its own way, laced between the paragraphs of hysteria (Overpopulation! Climate change! Women chained barefoot in the kitchen!), this snippet of Internet hyperbole really said it all. What does it mean to "enjoy life"? What is our purpose? Why do we have kids, anyway?

Not so long ago, people had children for simple economic and religious reasons. Some people had children just because everyone else was doing it, or, most obviously, because they lacked reliable birth control. Today, "a thousand evolutions in modern life" -- Last cites education, delayed marriage, the Pill, urbanization, abortion, modern capitalism, insane parenting costs, secularization, and even car seat laws -- have shifted our view of children. For some, Last notes, having children is almost an "act of consumption." For others, it's an "act of self-actualization." For many, it's simply a lifestyle choice. The individual, in short, reigns.

But as we've seen, those reasons aren't enough to inspire multiple babies, probably because having kids isn't exactly a trip to the Four Seasons Bora Bora. It's not even a trip to the grungy Super 8 off the local highway -- there, at least, you can sleep in. To have kids primarily as a "lifestyle choice," in fact, would border on insane, considering it's a lifestyle largely devoid of "me time," leisurely breakfasts, spur-of-the-moment plans that don't involve going to Target, and, as my dad liked to hopelessly request when I was a kid, "peace and quiet."

The best arguments for having children, unfortunately, run opposed to modern, secular American culture. Good reasons to have kids tend to be about delayed gratification, prioritizing family, putting others first, transmitting serious values and beliefs, focusing on something larger than yourself, and understanding the difference between joy and fun. Perhaps this is why, as Last notes, "American pets now outnumber American children by more than four to one." It's also why, if American fertility continues to slide -- and, as the author notes, that's still an "if" at this point -- there's little the government can do.

What to Expect When No One's Expecting discusses potential policy solutions to the global fertility drought. Many are vague, and few are convincing. When it comes to pro-natalist government policy, welfare-state support for parents seems to work a bit; outright bribery, as recently attempted in Singapore, does not. But the main driver of faltering global fertility -- and the reason Last's book is so interesting -- is based on culture, not policy.

The good news is that culture can be engaged and changed. The bad news is that change can be plodding. America still has time to adjust its priorities in terms of marriage, community, and family. Other countries, having already jumped off the fertility cliff, may not have that luxury.

Heather Wilhelm is a writer based in Chicago. http://www.heatherwilhelm.com/


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: birthrate; collapse; extinction; family; fertilityrate; implosion; subfertility; westerncivilization
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

Do we?

Reflections prompted by Jonathan V. Last's new book, "What to Expect When No One's Expecting: America's Coming Demographic Disaster."

Another demographics author, Steve Mosher, says the reason America isn't *yet* population collapse like Japan and Russia, is that the Republican-controlled Congress in 1994 passed a tax credit of $1,000 for each child under 16, and generously increased the per dependent deduction so that it is now $4,650. This means that young couples can actually lower their taxes by having more children, to the point where young couples of modest income pay virtually no income tax.

Mosher says that while this policy has kept America’s birthrate near replacement, this is not good enough. Young couples should also be sheltered from paying social security taxes, for example. Those who are willing to marry and have children should have their student loans forgiven. They should be exempted from state taxes, from sales tax, from any and all manner of taxation.

After all, they are investing in the future of America in the most fundamental way: by investing in the future generation.

I sometimes hear people say they wish they had had more kids. But to have a decent-sized family, you kinda have to start young. Younger than we did, anyhow.

1 posted on 01/15/2013 6:24:01 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Either HGTV is biased against children, or there really are 50% of the couples shown hunting for houses for themselves and their dogs.

Will their dogs be paying into Social Security for them, or taking care of them in their dotage? This generation has certainly changed the pattern of familial responsibility. Wonder how that will work out in 40 or 50 years.


2 posted on 01/15/2013 6:37:09 AM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I look at two of my unmarried sons and wonder if out of those 55,000,000 infants-in-utero who were killed in abortion, a couple of them were destined to be their wives but never lived?

They can’t seem to find their soulmates.


3 posted on 01/15/2013 6:43:27 AM PST by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Here in Virginia, the majority of the ones we see pushing multiple strollers are immigrants... legal and illegal.

Demographic change, indeed.


4 posted on 01/15/2013 6:45:37 AM PST by ScottinVA (More dizzying than a Tilt-a-Whirl is an around-a-circle argument with a liberal about gun control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

It would also help greatly if prospective parents didn’t have to fear the influences of an increasingly perverted, sex-driven, pro-homosexual societal culture.


5 posted on 01/15/2013 6:49:41 AM PST by ScottinVA (More dizzying than a Tilt-a-Whirl is an around-a-circle argument with a liberal about gun control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Well with WHO we have in the WH, it would scare people.


6 posted on 01/15/2013 6:50:18 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

We reep what we sow. The day will come when Abortion will be illegal—not out of any religious reason—but because we will need people! We will need workers and slaves to keep alive the machinery of the state—It will be like Metropolis—the old movie. I fear the end will be revolution.


7 posted on 01/15/2013 6:52:29 AM PST by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

“American pets now outnumber American children by more than four to one.”


8 posted on 01/15/2013 6:54:42 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("He Whom the whole world cannot contain, was enclosed within thy womb, O Virgin, and became Man.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee
Displays of selfishness, familiar and relational conflict -- these are much more entertaining in our 24-hour media culture. Somehow, a joyful mom, just thrilled with multiple children, doesn't make the cut in terms of our viewership, our popular culture, our literature, the Web. The Duggars are an exception to that.

For what it's worth, there ARE people who love their spouses, and are overjoyed with their multiple children. Folks who know that life is so short, so precious, and that the days of diapering and nose-wiping will pass all too quickly. Folks who will risk heartbreak, should a child encounter tragedy, but who also risk unparalleled joy and thrills when children reach milestones in life - walking, talking, driving, graduating, marrying, bearing children.

Pundits, bitter feminists, metro males, whoever, can go ahead and head into old age alone, skip the work, yes; but they also skip the depths of joy that children bring. But, a child doesn't bear the responsibility of bringing you anything - love and duty are the burdens of parenthood, not childhood. But, wow, I can think of no greater priviledge than to be a mom - of whether one or 10.

9 posted on 01/15/2013 6:55:54 AM PST by elk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

You really made a fantastic point - one which I never thought of in that way.

We always hear “what if they could have cured cancer” or some such grandiose claim.

And I’ve always thought of the sadness of the immediate family, living without that child, sibling, cousin, etc.

But God has a plan for each of us, and wants us to love one another. What if man, in his folly, as killed the one whom God planned for us to meet, love and marry?
Sad.


10 posted on 01/15/2013 6:56:15 AM PST by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee
Displays of selfishness, familial and relational conflict -- these are much more entertaining in our 24-hour media culture. Somehow, a joyful mom, just thrilled with multiple children, doesn't make the cut in terms of our viewership, our popular culture, our literature, the Web. The Duggars are an exception to that.

For what it's worth, there ARE people who love their spouses, and are overjoyed with their multiple children. Folks who know that life is so short, so precious, and that the days of diapering and nose-wiping will pass all too quickly. Folks who will risk heartbreak, should a child encounter tragedy, but who also risk unparalleled joy and thrills when children reach milestones in life - walking, talking, driving, graduating, marrying, bearing children.

Pundits, bitter feminists, metro males, whoever, can go ahead and head into old age alone, skip the work, yes; but they also skip the depths of joy that children bring. But, a child doesn't bear the responsibility of bringing you anything - love and duty are the burdens of parenthood, not childhood. But, wow, I can think of no greater priviledge than to be a mom - of whether one or 10.

11 posted on 01/15/2013 6:56:27 AM PST by elk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
It is refreshing to read something from women who actually promote the virtues of having children. My cousin just had her 8th and I'm not sure they are done yet.

She and her husband are rock-ribbed conservatives who live in the middle state of the only three where not one single county voted for Obama. (Hint: It also has the highest Native American population percentage in the U.S.A. and most of them aren't working in casinos and selling tax-free tobacco.)

Of course, every one of their kids are being trained to be useful productive adults. And they are all a joy to be around. Their Christmas card this year was a family photo where they were all doing the nativity scene. The baby dressed as baby Jesus, Mom and Dad as Mary and Joseph and the older kids as shepherd boys and angels. Even the goats on their farm got into the act.

12 posted on 01/15/2013 6:58:27 AM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elk

Sorry about the double post - meant to say, “familial” not familiar...


13 posted on 01/15/2013 6:59:45 AM PST by elk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: elk

Sorry about the double post - meant to say, “familial” not familiar...


14 posted on 01/15/2013 6:59:53 AM PST by elk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Not only do people rely on government tax deductions for children, they demand that the government supply food in the form of WIC. Can you imagine what the birth rate would be if propestive mothers thought they had to pay for thier own children’s food?!?!?!


15 posted on 01/15/2013 7:07:17 AM PST by eccentric (a.k.a. baldwidow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
For various reasons both good and bad we don't have any children. Your comment highlights one of the "good" reasons-during the brief time in our lives when children were possible we were both working full-time yet there was very little money, and none at all for religious school. We were dead-set against letting strangers and the godless public schools raise a child of ours. So nothing happened.

I admit that for every night I sleep uneasily worrying about my future I spend a night sleeping soundly because I'm NOT worrying about my child. We have a lot of Christian friends with kids and with a few exceptions the children are turning out amoral, colossally selfish and sexually confused. Worse, they are STAYING that way into their thirties. I've seen marriages fail because adult children (and often their adult friends/lovers/ambiguous "companions") are living at home putting huge emotional and financial strains on their parents. It's scary to watch.

16 posted on 01/15/2013 7:17:59 AM PST by jboot (This isn't your father's America. Stay safe and keep your powder dry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All

Well I gave my wife (who is over 40) a warning, no kids no marriage... I refuse to be in a childless marriage..


17 posted on 01/15/2013 7:21:41 AM PST by KevinDavis (And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Populations receding is a dream come true for Bill Gates who also supports euthanasia except for himself.


18 posted on 01/15/2013 7:22:17 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Hmmm... “putting others first”... “focusing on something larger than yourself... doesn’t sound American to me, COMRADE!


19 posted on 01/15/2013 7:24:17 AM PST by Brightitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Mosher says that while this policy has kept America’s birthrate near replacement, this is not good enough. Young couples should also be sheltered from paying social security taxes, for example. Those who are willing to marry and have children should have their student loans forgiven. They should be exempted from state taxes, from sales tax, from any and all manner of taxation.

Geez, why not just back up a dump truck full of government money to their house and dump it in?

You could get bipartisan support for the idea by plastering George Bush's (either one) face on one side of the truck and Barack Obama's on the other.

20 posted on 01/15/2013 7:24:36 AM PST by Brightitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
"But as Last argues, "Very Bad Things" have historically accompanied depopulation, including disease, war, and economic disaster."

HUH!? This doesn't correspond to any history that "I" know about. In the past, "depopulation" was CAUSED BY "disease, war, economic disaster". Add to that list REAL "climate change" (specifically sudden shifts from WARM to COLD). Population increases have historically happened when climate was WARMING, and population crashes when climate was COOLING.

The current "child dearth" is completely different, being a voluntary limitation on fertility. And I don't see how, given the increasing availability of automation, that an "economic disaster" is in the offing for anything other than the welfare state, which depends on stealing from future generations to finance current largesse.

Far more critical is that fact that the "best and brightest" are severely limiting their fertility while the "worst and dumbest" are breeding like flies. Basically "reverse evolution".

21 posted on 01/15/2013 7:25:30 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eccentric
I've got no problem with tax deducations. That's not a gift. That's keeping more of your own money.

Not sure what a "propestive" mother is. Probably a qwerty?

22 posted on 01/15/2013 7:29:51 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Querty ergo typo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Humans went through this once before. When women became aware of the relationship between getting boffed and getting pregnant, they stopped getting boffed. That was who knows how many hundred thousand years ago. Natural selection then went to work, and only those women who’s menstruation was so horrible that pregnancy was preferable would get pregnant. In fact, the menstruation became so horrible that the entire tribe would make sure that every woman who could get pregnant, was pregnant.

Now, menstruation is eliminated by birth control and we’re back to women not getting pregnant.

Goodbye world.


23 posted on 01/15/2013 7:32:39 AM PST by Born to Conserve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brightitude
Haha. I am not a Communist, and neither are any of my comrades!!

:oP

24 posted on 01/15/2013 7:32:47 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Querty ergo typo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Brightitude
I'm all for tax breaks for childbearing families--- and anybody else who can get one. This is not about government money. This is about not paying so much of your own hard-earned money TO the government. That's not a gift from the public: it's keeping your own income.

It's an excellent conservative principle.

Govt. can do defense and (maybe) postal services. That's it.

25 posted on 01/15/2013 7:37:41 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Querty ergo typo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Born to Conserve
Everyone (everyone human, that is: not talking about the other large primates) everyone knows that sexual intercourse causes pregnancy. Nobody has ever encountered an actual primitive tribe, clan, horde or political party that didn't know that, with the possible exception of one very dull boy named Bronisław Malinowski.

Your many-hundred-thousand-years-ago menstrual theory is ...interesting. What you be smokin'

26 posted on 01/15/2013 7:47:40 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Querty ergo typo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

What a great article. Thanks for sharing.

I was never blessed with kids of my own, but I raised three step-sons from ages 3, 4 & 5 to adulthood.

Unfortunately, we lost one to a drug overdose, the other appears to be asexual and the third and most eligible one STILL doesn’t have it together enough to marry and raise his own kids...at age 25.

So, I guess I really didn’t contribute much to the sustainable population solution, did I? LOL!

Eh. It was fun while it lasted...


27 posted on 01/15/2013 7:48:44 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

BS. There’s always something to be scared of. A thousand years ago, it was Vikings and Saracens. If anything, this should be an incentive to have MORE children.


28 posted on 01/15/2013 7:50:46 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; Born to Conserve
Mind if I give it a try?

[ Peter Sellers voice ]

...and, when... did you first develop this this theory?

/Peter Sellers

29 posted on 01/15/2013 7:52:49 AM PST by OKSooner ("The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen." - Revelation 22:21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Brightitude
why not just back up a dump truck full of government money to their house and dump it in?

We already do this, and there's nothing wrong with it. Childbearing is a valuable service to the state (look up the original meaning of proletariat). The state has an obligation to reward fruitful family life, and to privilege it.

30 posted on 01/15/2013 7:57:40 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: elk
Pundits, bitter feminists, metro males, whoever, can go ahead and head into old age alone, skip the work, yes; but they also skip the depths of joy that children bring.

And yet your depth of joy doesn't seem to fulfill unless you marginalize those who do not share it. All the childless people who are bitter, of questionable sexual orientation, or whoever, as you describe.

For people who never had families of their own for whatever reason, not always through their own choice, the self-righteousness of those who have made procreation their ultimate good, is cloying.

31 posted on 01/15/2013 8:04:39 AM PST by fattigermaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Back to the top.


32 posted on 01/15/2013 8:12:18 AM PST by EternalVigilance (It's amazing how expensive "free" can be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fattigermaster; elk
I can't speak for others, but I suspect elk is not dissing the occasional persons/couples who are childless for whatever reason, but reacting to the barrage of anti-childbearing crap from the liberal child-rejectors who've controlled the schools, media, and large chunks of both major political parties for the past 45 years.

The Title X Family Planning Program, officially known as Public Law 91-572 or “Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs” was enacted under President Richard Nixon in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act. Sine then they have poured literallybillions of dollars into anti-childbearing propaganda and fertility-maiming paraphernalia.

I'm pegging that to the publication of fraudster Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" in 1968.

33 posted on 01/15/2013 8:16:01 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Querty ergo typo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fattigermaster

For self-centered whiners, everything they don’t like is a personal attack inflicted intentionally on them, just because they’re so damn important.


34 posted on 01/15/2013 8:29:47 AM PST by Trailerpark Badass (So?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
Childbearing is a valuable service to the state (look up the original meaning of proletariat).

Yep, the advocates of servitude to the state don't even bother hiding their red roots any more.

35 posted on 01/15/2013 8:34:07 AM PST by Brightitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Ah, so you want some freeloaders to get defense while everybody else pays for it. Gotcha.

Now, if you want to propose doing it fairly (move to a tax-exempt island with the understanding that the United States armed forces won't do diddly if it gets invaded), well, OK then.

36 posted on 01/15/2013 8:34:18 AM PST by Brightitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
I don't see how, given the increasing availability of automation, that an "economic disaster" is in the offing for anything other than the welfare state

As you can see on this very thread, even FR has Big Governmentalists for whom the pruning of any of Big Government's tentacles would be the worstest disaster ever.

37 posted on 01/15/2013 8:34:36 AM PST by Brightitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

[[ What’s strange about our dining room child-planning summit, from a historical perspective, is that we considered it at all. “A few generations ago, people weren’t stopping to contemplate whether having a child would make them happy,” wrote Jennifer Senior in her much-discussed parenting treatise, “All Joy and No Fun,” which ran in New York magazine in 2010. “Having children was simply what you did.” ]]

Well, something happened to change that.
And Loretta Lynn knew what it was:

You wined me and dined me when I was your girl
Promised if I’d be your wife you’d show me the world
But all I’ve seen of this old world is a bed and a doctor bill
I’m tearing down your brooder house ‘cause now I’ve got the pill

All these years I’ve stayed at home while you had all your fun
And every year that’s gone by another baby’s come
There’s gonna be some changes made right here on Nursery Hill
You’ve set this chicken your last time ‘cause now I’ve got the pill

This old maternity dress I’ve got is going in the garbage
The clothes I’m wearing from now on won’t take up so much yardage
Miniskirts hotpants and a few little fancy frills
Yeah I’m making up for all those years since I’ve got the pill

I’m tired of all your crowing how you and your hens play
While holding a couple in my arms another’s on the way
This chicken’s done tore up her nest and I’m ready to make a deal
And you can’t afford to turn it down ‘cause you know I’ve got the pill

This incubator is overused because you’ve kept it filled
The feeling good comes easy now since I’ve got the pill
It’s getting dark it’s roosting time tonight’s too good to be real
Aw but Daddy don’t you worry none ‘cause Mama’s got the pill.

There’s only one way it will ever “change back”.
You know what that would entail.
And no one is ever going to do that...


38 posted on 01/15/2013 8:58:16 AM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Indeed, my intention is not to judge, but to note the judgment placed upon those who do have children. There has been a war on families for a long time. Think about Betty Friedan's canard about the suburban housewife being akin to a workcamp slave in "The Feminist Mystique," or the calls over the years to start a Momy Wars between those who work and those who are full-time homemakers. Note that moms who work and those who stay home full time aren't interested in judging each other - each family has to make tough calls about these matters.

See, those who cry "keep your hands off my body" have a huge hypocracy going on as they tend to judge those who do choose to procreate (those pitiful barefoot and pregnant types/sarcasm). Well, I daresay that the state, the planners, the whoevers, need to keep their hands off the products of my reproductive choice (to procreate).

A mom should not need to apologise if she chooses to have children, one or more, and is able to stay home with them - it's not an attack on anyone, just a defense of the Mom.

Mom, Baseball, and Apple Pie. What used to be the summary of much of what was good about America. Sad that poor Mom has to bear such attacks.

39 posted on 01/15/2013 8:59:30 AM PST by elk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Brightitude
No, no, no, no, no. We'll pay for defense. That's a wonderful conservative principle. Although perhaps it could be argued that childbearers should get some extra consideration there, too, since we supply the troops.

Lowering taxes usually gets a tip 'o the hat of respect at Conservative websites.

(Shifting glance to the right and the left, shrugging): You never know who's out there, though.

40 posted on 01/15/2013 9:05:08 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Querty ergo typo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Brightitude

Oh! Jan 2013! Well hello there, n00bie. Welcome to our brawl.


41 posted on 01/15/2013 9:06:44 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (:o))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide

Yeah, Loretta Lynn, Betty Friedan and Hugh Hefner. That’s quite a killer threesome.


42 posted on 01/15/2013 9:09:05 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (:o))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Steven Mosher is an amazing man - I’ve exchanged emails with him over the years - but I think he is wrong in his tax-policy proposals. If they were spherical tax credits in a vacuum, it might work, but in our society, his ideas simply pit segments of the population against one another, when we need to be united against our common enemy, Communism.

Lower taxes for everyone. Reduce spending on everything. Eliminate regulation for everyone. Break government education, government medical care, and the government-employee racket for everyone. Any decision made because it could result in a government benefit fails on its merits. The exercise of free will, worthy of human beings, doesn’t include the question, “Will Daddy ‘Bama give us a cookie?”

FREEDOM! For freedom Christ has set you free, so do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.


43 posted on 01/15/2013 9:09:24 AM PST by Tax-chick (I'm a nightmare, not a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Standing up for a standing-O!


44 posted on 01/15/2013 9:10:38 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (:o))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

You have to take Loretta’s life experience into account: she got married at 13, didn’t even know how babies were made, and stuck with the alcoholic, abusive adulterer until he died, which was a LONG time.


45 posted on 01/15/2013 9:13:04 AM PST by Tax-chick (I'm a nightmare, not a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

We’re all mad here.


46 posted on 01/15/2013 9:15:25 AM PST by Tax-chick (I'm a nightmare, not a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: Brightitude

Every member of a human community has responsibilities to it. Everyone serves the state in some way; it has always and everywhere been thus. Only your unconsidered reflexes and manifest ignorance of history make it seem “red” to you. Likewise, it has always been understood that the poorest of the poor had nothing to contribute but their human fertility, which is nevertheless accepted as valuable and indispensable.

Stupid slogans and smears are really no substitute for thought. Your resistance to facts is making you ridiculous.


48 posted on 01/15/2013 9:31:23 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“Loretta Lynn, Betty Friedan and Hugh Hefner. That’s quite a killer threesome.”

If I’m not mistaken, Ms. Lynn was a mom by her mid-teens, and a grandmother while still in her thirties. She knows what she be-a-talkin’ about.

But — don’t blame her for the message in her song.

For almost the entire length of human history, women had children because they couldn’t prevent themselves from having children.

By the 1960’s (and the “Griswold v. Connecticut” decision) that changed.

Women now have “the pill”. What “choice” have they made since that option became available?

The only way to reverse the consequences of that choice, is to take “the option” away.

Otherwise, amongst women who have the choice (and the pill) available, too many will make the same choice as is being chosen today (as trends indicate).

I’m not advocating that we do that. But conservatism is being able to see reality for what it is, to understand that reality, and then determine how best to conduct ourselves in view of (or in spite of) it.

That’s the way it is...


49 posted on 01/15/2013 9:31:47 AM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; elk
I can't speak for others, but I suspect elk is not dissing the occasional persons/couples who are childless for whatever reason, but reacting to the barrage of anti-childbearing crap from the liberal child-rejectors who've controlled the schools, media, and large chunks of both major political parties for the past 45 years.

Completely reasonable, and classified I presume under her "pundits" category. The actual individuals od couples who do not bear children, however, seem to fall into her "bitter feminists metro males and whoever" who want to "skip the work" category.

I reiterate that this attitude towards single people and childless couples is common, and hope I've not trod on a forbidden holy boundary by mentioning it.

Google "childless prejudice" and see who is being judgemental to whom.

50 posted on 01/15/2013 9:41:19 AM PST by fattigermaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson