<tips hat to Walter>
Foofie wrote:Doesn't anyone find it sort of ironic that just when women can look forward to NOT dying in childbirth, they prefer to have fewer and fewer children?
OK, let us rephrase that.
Is it surprising or ironic that women prefer to have fewer and fewer children, just when the universal availability of the pill means they have the freedom to
choose whether they want to have them or not?
That's the relevant bit you're looking for. Sure, improvements in health care mean that having a child is now safer than ever. But the arrival of safe and reliable contraception has caused a much more drastic change in life choices: you dont actually
have to keep on getting children anymore, just because you have sex.
Foofie wrote:For a thousand years European women had children, many times until they died during/after delivery. [..] Should anyone look to Europeans, and question whether they are doing the unpatriotic act by limiting their childbirthing/childrearing?
For a thousand years European women had many children, yes, but not out of any patriotism - it was simply
because they had no choice. That simple.
Meanwhile, of course, on the whole, if you look at the world's countries, you will see that the countries with low birthrates are at the prosperous end, while the countries with the highest birthrates are largely to be found at the most destitute end. So what
is the patriotic thing to do?