Why do people have less children these days?

Answer 1

My personal feeling: because I want to be able to fully provide (and I don't mean material goods and just spoiling the heck out of her) for the one I have instead of compromising my attention to, patience with, effort in caring for, and yes money for "things" and eventually education fund by having several more. Having just one child fits our lifestyle and desires best.

It comes down to personal preference...I love babies but eventually they aren't babies anymore. Not enough parents realize that and get caught up in how cute babies are (not meant to be a generalization since I realize most families have more than 1 child but even now I hear my friends saying they miss having a baby in the house, long to be pregnant again etc instead of vocalizing their desire to have and RAISE another child to be a successful, thoughtful, productive adult). Now that families don't need them for farm labor and the mortality rate is low, there is no "need" to have a large family other than if the parents really want to and can handle the stressors of having a large family.

Answer 2

Hey, an easy one for a change! lol Now, lets see how short I can keep this answer! lol

In some countries the number of children born to families has not changed. It is in developed countries where this is changing.

First off, the onset of birth control and the legal right for women to utilize it has allowed for smaller families. As women learned how birthing numerous children wore on a body, it became desirable to try to control the number of pregnanies they had. Long before traditional birth control methods arrived, women had been attempting their own homeopathic remedies. Some were old wives tales and some actually worked. For example: Long before the Sponge became popular a while back women had learned that inserting a sponge, hopefully of sea ilk, it would cut down on pregnancies. Another example of effective birth control was the abstinance, but, sadly, women had little right in refusing their husbands advances. Women often could minipulate less sex with their husbands by claiming old wives tales, such as how sex while nursing could turn their milk sour. As women often nursed for up to two years, this could help stop yearly pregnancies. Though I do have to say few women were able to avoid sex for a full two years. So, anyway, women discovered many years ago the damage to physical welfare and financial welfare, they just had few resources in combating the situation. Especially with the Cathlic churches insistance, up to the present, that any form of birth control is against God's will.

Personally, I believe that is a bunch of bull. lol I don't for one moment believe God advocates a woman having so many children her body gives out, makes her older than her years, and creates a situation where she and her husband is unable to properly care for them.

Now, as we entered the industrial era we had a burst of invention and nations become "developed". This created an atmospher which enabled the invention of medical devices and medical remedies which increasingly held off pregnancy.

When it became legal to use these types of birth control we then had to educate the masses into why they are of benifit. Education is still an ongoing battle.

However, as familes see the expense of children they are much more willing to partake of more careful planning and choosing to have fewer children. Finacial solvency is of primary concern and health wise it is much more benificial to have fewer children.

In the United States citizens and legal residents are no longer having enough children to even maintain the level of population. Left to these families and individuals we would see a sharp decline in population if we did not allow immigration or stopped the influx of illegal immigrants.

So, these are the reasons, both financial and physical benifts, for the reduction of families having less children.

See, and easy question and I kept my response to a minimum! Give the Lady a prize! lol

This is a great question for several reasons. First, I don't think many are aware that without immigration the population of the US would sharply decline, and rather quickly. Which is why immigration reform is so needed. Many would assume that a reduction in population would be benificial. In terms of resources this is true, but for overall health of the ecconomy it isn't. So, we have to weigh these two and see what the best formula would be. Secondly, I don't think many understand all the benifits ofl living in a "developed" country. Those in "under developed" or "undeveloped" watch their too many children starve to death, and their wives still die in childbirth in record numbers. The infant mortality rate is extremely high.

Oh yeah, one more reason people choose to have less children, and a very important one at that! Less Stress! lol

Answer 3

Infant Mortality Rate.

150 years ago, if you had 12 children, you might have three or five die by the time they reached adulthood. Times were tougher, and medicine then wasn't as good as it is now.

Today, if you have two or three children, all are likely to reach adulthood.

I just made the numbers up, but the idea still holds. You can probably find actual statistics somewhere.

Answer 4

I cannot answer this because I/we made a choice years ago "not" to have children. My husband has a daughter from a previous relationship and we didn't have her in our lives until the last 8 years and it was very painful not to know where she was or how she was. But now it is great, we have not only her, but her husband and two beautiful granddaughters. I really can't recall why we chose to do that, but it was the right decision after it was all said and done.

Answer 5

It could be because the new medicine we have and so we don't have to have many children just to see if some could survive and also probably becasue it cost a lot to take care of children and send them to school.

Answer 6

There are less than 100 years left of the world according to Psychic Sylvia Brown!

Answer 7

Industrialization. Children cost more to feed and clothe than they contribute to a family's income/production in an industrialized society. In an agrarian society they were an economic necessity, because they were free labor.

Answer 8

Because abortion was legalized? Because people have become more materialistic and they would rather have a 3,000 square foot, $500,000 house instead of a smaller house with a happy family? Because things we're eating (or things our moms ate when they were pregnant with us) rendered us unable to procreate? I don't know--it could be any number of things.

Answer 9

Increased use of contraception
Greater emphasis on education and career advancement
Maybe more people have began to have the foresight that they would crappy parents, and so avoid the becoming parents

Answer 10

children take money. less money= less kids