Teaching about "Fertility"

donaghs · 08-06-2015 12:01pm #1

It's something I hear about constantly, women who want to have children but have basically waited too long for it to be viable. Not always directly from people, but its huge issues for people and causes a lot of heartbreak and anguish.

People learn about the mechanics of sex, and also how to prevent getting pregnant. But is it time to start emphasizing "fertility" also?

It may seem like common sense to some, but when you consider how many highly educated women there are in their 30s spending huge amounts of money on fertility treatments - shouldn't the importance of fertility really be treated as a much higher priority in education etc?

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/may/15/sex-education-for-teenagers-should-include-fertility-says-doctor

Pat Mustard · 09-06-2015 1:24pm

Looks like there is an issue alright.

our fertility rate (i.e. the projected amount of children mothers are expected to have) is 1.95. A level of 2.1 is generally seen as being adequate for a population to replace itself, not counting migration. So, the end may not exactly be nigh, but we’d still want to up our rate of productivity.

galljga1 · 09-06-2015 1:31pm

I would not worry too much about population renewal. Given the worsening situations in Middle East and Africa, we will have plenty of volunteers to assist us with bolstering our population. It might also make us a bit more multicultural.

donaghs · 09-06-2015 2:21pm

Its true that immigration can take care of population decline based on existing people not reproducing at a replacement rate - that's been the case in the UK already - however that's kind of a separate issue.

Most people will inevitably want to have children, and women are much more affected by the fertility "biological clock" running out.

pwurple · 10-06-2015 2:53pm

I don't know where this fits into education. I was on the fertility rollercoaster in my twenties... so I'm maybe more aware than others. But I had a lot of exposure to infertility support groups already, legal issues around reproductive right etc because of the line of work some of my family are in.

It fits naturally into biology or home ec, but not everyone does those. Sex education was delivered in religion class, which was bloody cringeworthy in our teens. I don't think anything worthwhile went into my head there behind the giggles and 'hilarious' notes being passed around as a nun tried to show us how a condom worked.

The Corinthian · 10-06-2015 3:09pm

TBH, I don't think the problem is education. In reality, it is the most educated of us who have children later, or not at all. This would go against the thesis of this thread.

The problem is that career and lifestyle are something that we don't want to sacrifice and so we delay starting families as long as we can. And often this delay is too long.

Peregrinus · 11-06-2015 8:25am

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, I don't think the problem is education. In reality, it is the most educated of us who have children later, or not at all. This would go against the thesis of this thread.

The problem is that career and lifestyle are something that we don't want to sacrifice and so we delay starting families as long as we can. And often this delay is too long.

I think the suggestion is not so much that poeople are generally uneducated, but that people who are well-educated in general terms are still somewhat ignorant about the realities of fertility. In other words, personal/health education (in Ireland, at any rate) doesn't equip people with a good understanding of the issues around fertility, with the result that they make choices that, maybe, they wouldn't make if the understood the realities a bit better.

I'm not convinced, though. If there's one thing we know about sexuality, it's that simply giving people the information they need to make sound choices doesn't, in itself, mean that they will make sound choices. It's not difficult to find examples of societies where teenagers are given full information about sexuality, reproduction and contraception, and ready access to contraception, that still have alarmingly high teen pregnancy and teen birth rates. Consequently, if it is true that a signficant proportion of people are deferring conception until the point where fertility is starting to decline, it's not necessarily because nobody has told them when fertility starts to decline.

The Corinthian · 11-06-2015 8:58am

I'd tend to agree with you. We are talking typically about the better educated and, one might presume intelligent, people in society. If anyone should not be ignorant, it should be them.

As I said, I think it comes down to a lifestyle choice. Being an no-kids ABC1 is a good lifestyle. It's also necessary if you want to keep up in your career. So people delay these things till the last possible moment, in some cases, because they don't want the party to end.

And fertility isn't the only problem with this, but I suspect we'll see divorce rates rocket in the next few decades. People stay single, reach their mid-thirties, then panic and settle down with the first mammal with a penis/vagina that ticks enough boxes. How many couples in their thirties do we all know who went from first date to married and pregnant within 24 months?

Peregrinus · 11-06-2015 9:15am

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'd tend to agree with you. We are talking typically about the better educated and, one might presume intelligent, people in society . . .

Nitpick, but I have to. One would not presume this. Educational attainment is an indicator of socioeconomic background much more than of intelligence.

The Corinthian wrote: »

As I said, I think it comes down to a lifestyle choice. Being an no-kids ABC1 is a good lifestyle. It's also necessary if you want to keep up in your career. So people delay these things till the last possible moment, in some cases, because they don't want the party to end.

And fertility isn't the only problem with this, but I suspect we'll see divorce rates rocket in the next few decades. People stay single, reach their mid-thirties, then panic and settle down with the first mammal with a penis/vagina that ticks enough boxes. How many couples in their thirties do we all know who went from first date to married and pregnant within 24 months?

Hold on, isn't there an inconsistency between these two paragraphs? If we are really motivated by materialistic lifestyle aspirations, as your first paragraph suggests, wouldn't the logical course be to get partnered earlier, rather than later? There are huge efficiencies to living as a couple, plus of course there are potentially very significant tax advantages to being married. If people defer partnering and settling, that suggests they are not driven by short-term desire for a materialist lifestyle.

I suggest that late marriage and late childbearing can both be explained by insecurity, which could be either emotional or economic or both. People are reluctant to make commitments from which the cannot resile easily (marriage) or at all (parenthood); hence they defer making these commitments. And if that analysis is correct, then the "problem" of late childbearing (if indeed it is a problem) is not one that can be solved with better information about fertility. I may understand that my fertility (or my partners) will start to decline at some point, but that understanding isn't enough in itself to give me the confidence (or courage!) to commit to parenthood.

Macha · 11-06-2015 12:43pm

It's not always a lifestyle choice. Many people in their thirties simply haven't found a long-term partner with whom they can have children.

Sometimes you meet the right person, sometimes you don't - that's down to luck, not lifestyle.

The Corinthian · 11-06-2015 12:52pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hold on, isn't there an inconsistency between these two paragraphs? If we are really motivated by materialistic lifestyle aspirations, as your first paragraph suggests, wouldn't the logical course be to get partnered earlier, rather than later? There are huge efficiencies to living as a couple, plus of course there are potentially very significant tax advantages to being married. If people defer partnering and settling, that suggests they are not driven by short-term desire for a materialist lifestyle.

You presume both are earning, or earning at the same level. The economies of scale you get with having a flatmate often don't translate with cohabitation.

Macha wrote: »

It's not always a lifestyle choice. Many people in their thirties simply haven't found a long-term partner with whom they can have children.

I get the impression that people in their twenties are more 'picky' than they would have been fifty years ago or so. Then they hit their thirties, panic and end up going in the other direction, willing to take the first mammal with the right naughty bits:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTAVtKgGmZk

Macha · 11-06-2015 1:02pm

Yeah, and then sometimes it has nothing to do with being picky. It just doesn't happen.

The Corinthian · 11-06-2015 1:12pm

Macha wrote: »

Yeah, and then sometimes it has nothing to do with being picky. It just doesn't happen.

I didn't say it did. I said I got the impression it did.

Peregrinus · 12-06-2015 1:51am

Macha wrote: »

It's not always a lifestyle choice. Many people in their thirties simply haven't found a long-term partner with whom they can have children.

Sometimes you meet the right person, sometimes you don't - that's down to luck, not lifestyle.

On an individual level, yes. But if you find (as we have found) that on a societal level the age of first childbearing has risen dramatically, does that suggest that people have a much bigger difficulty in finding The One than they had in the past? And why would that be? Are people more demanding and particular than they used to be? Or are they simply attaching a different priority to the question of finding The One and settling down with them?

Peregrinus · 12-06-2015 1:57am

The Corinthian wrote: »

You presume both are earning, or earning at the same level. The economies of scale you get with having a flatmate often don't translate with cohabitation.

No, whether they are both earning the same amount, or different amounts, or one is earning and the other is not, a single household containing two people is signficantly more efficient than two households containing one person.

I take the point that if I'm earning and my current squeeze is not, taking them on as a dependent will cost me money. But given our propensity to choose partners within our own socioeconomic group, the number of couples where one is earning and the other, though childless, is not will be dwarfed by the number of couples where both are earning, or neither are. And for those groups, getting partnered is definitely the rational choice, in purely materialistic terms. This would hugely outweigh the reluctance of the first group to partner, and so that couldn't explain the rise in the age of partnering.

The Corinthian · 12-06-2015 6:18am

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, whether they are both earning the same amount, or different amounts, or one is earning and the other is not, a single household containing two people is signficantly more efficient than two households containing one person.

From an aggregate point of view perhaps, but not from an individual point of view, which is my point.

I take the point that if I'm earning and my current squeeze is not, taking them on as a dependent will cost me money. But given our propensity to choose partners within our own socioeconomic group, the number of couples where one is earning and the other, though childless, is not will be dwarfed by the number of couples where both are earning, or neither are.

That's a big presumption and, at least from experience, not one I'd agree with.

And for those groups, getting partnered is definitely the rational choice, in purely materialistic terms. This would hugely outweigh the reluctance of the first group to partner, and so that couldn't explain the rise in the age of partnering.

Oh, I don't think it explains it alone. It might be one reason, but there's a lot more to it. As I suggested above, I suspect there's a good bit of Peter Pan syndrome going on in people nowadays, compared to the past.

Peregrinus · 12-06-2015 6:49am

Obviously I'm not suggesting that people do, or should, get partnered in order to maximise their spending power. The question is, if people are otherwise disposed for social and emotional reasons to form a happy domestic couple, are they deterred from doing so by the impact on their spending power?

And I think the answer in the majority of cases is "no". If two people are both earning, and have similar lifestyle expectations, meeting those expectations will nearly always be easier for both of them if they run one household together rather than if they run two separately. Even the higher-earning member of the couple will be better-off. And the same is true where neither of the couple is earning, and they are both living on welfare or other transfer payments.

This is only not the case where there is a big disparity in earnings - one earns a good salary, and the other a grossly inadequate one, or none at all. In that case, the higher earner will find that taking on a dependent does cramp his or her style, financially, in a way that may not be fully offset by the tax advantages which will undoubtedly accrue in that scenario.

But this only operates as a short-term deterrent if the lack of earning capacity of one party is itself short term. For sustained disincentive to get coupled, you need a sustained earning deficit for one of the couple. So if I'm a merchant banker who has fallen in love with somebody who left school without a leaving certificate and has never worked since, yes, this is a disincentive to our getting together (to me, if not to my unemployable Reason For Living). But that's not a large proportion of all couples; I don't think this and similar situations can explain a large-scale deferral of coupledom.

We could test this, in theory, by looking at actual couples who do partner up at 31 or 32, and explore whether it would have detrimentally affected their lifestyles, materially speaking, to have take that step four or five years previously. Sadly, I have no data, but I have a pretty strong hunch that the answer in the majority of cases would have been "no".

pwurple · 12-06-2015 10:20am

The Corinthian wrote: »

As I suggested above, I suspect there's a good bit of Peter Pan syndrome going on in people nowadays, compared to the past.

Some of that, but also people don't feel prepared.

I know people who are married 5-6 years, but are still in prep-mode. Saving every penny for a house, because they feel a child needs a house rather than the flat they're in now.

I know another couple who are completely living for today. They spend all of their paychecks on holidays, expensive wine, swish rental place and great clothes. No pensions, no health insurance, no savings account, no life assurance, no assets of any kind. But they're having a blast!

Both of those couples are highly educated, and well aware of fertility. Different choices in both cases.

donaghs · 12-06-2015 12:28pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, I don't think the problem is education. In reality, it is the most educated of us who have children later, or not at all. This would go against the thesis of this thread.

The problem is that career and lifestyle are something that we don't want to sacrifice and so we delay starting families as long as we can. And often this delay is too long.

Its true that the most educated in society are deferring having children till later. Education can't solve everything, but consider what education they have on this issue?
If you asked most people in their 20s they'd have some awareness that womens fertility can drop off sharply from the 30s onwards etc. But has this really ever been taught in any serious way in SexEd, Biology, etc?

When you consider all those women who desperately want children, and left it too late, I don't think its simply a matter that they all were aware of their biological clock but chose to ignore this.
I think there are many people would have been in a position to have children, but simply didn't understand the seriousness of their bodies hitting a fertility "cliff".

The Corinthian · 12-06-2015 2:01pm

pwurple wrote: »

Some of that, but also people don't feel prepared.

I'd agree with that. That one can afford to have children is a common enough topic where it comes to this issue, although I might argue that some are setting their targets too high - in seeking in minimizing the 'hit' they take when they do, they end up leaving it too late.

An interesting theory to propose is that in most Western societies, lower income families get a good bit of help with having children compared to middle and higher earning groups who are expected to shoulder the burden alone. A link perhaps?

TBH, some of the posts here lead me to believe that there is no single reason for this, but it's a combination of socioeconomic one's that don't appear to be deterred by education. As if those most affected are aware of the limitations of fertility, but choose to ignore them till the last minute - or it's too late.

pwurple · 12-06-2015 3:37pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

An interesting theory to propose is that in most Western societies, lower income families get a good bit of help with having children compared to middle and higher earning groups who are expected to shoulder the burden alone. A link perhaps?

The saying goes that those who have large families are either very poor or very rich.

It's the middle who are, once again, squeezed out.

Macha · 13-06-2015 7:05am

Whatever about declining fertility, I think talk of a fertility cliff is a bit exaggerated. The science may doesn't back it up.

I think another reason for people leaving it later is that it just takes longer to establish a career these days. My parents were both in full time employment by the time they were 18 and so had a steady income. They had bought their first home before they hit 22.

I didn't get my first full time job until I was 22 and still an not in a position to buy a home. I'm not saying buying a home is a prerequisite to having a baby (although Ireland awful renting laws certainly make it feel like one), but it's a sign of the economic stability they enjoyed in their early 20s that most people these days wouldn't enjoy until their late 20s or beyond.

Teaching about "Fertility"

Comments