Demographic Politics And Population Growth - 2

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->having more kids also means that the efficiency of the other adult member in the family, namely the child bearer , is severely impaired for significant lengths of time . so you essentially trade off the mother's health for a narrow band of the child's life.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> I see some limitations to this line of argument:

1. This is a good argument for not having any children at all. But, no one is making that argument. Why? Because, we are trading off on our health all the time. When we drink tea, coffee or wine, when we drive (or even breathe) in Bangalore, we are trading off on our health. What makes this particular trade-off (having more children vs. preserving our health) so unique?

2. How much of a mother's health is really compromised? I notice that certain kinds of cancer (like carcinoma of the breast, etc.) are less likely to occur among women who have multiple kids, who have their kids earlier in life, etc. The female body (of all species that sexually reproduce) appears to be equipped for that kind of strain. In fact, except the complications of childbirth like puerperal fever, etc., I cannot off-hand recall any disease whose incidence increases after childbirth in the long term.