Birth control pill inventor regrets

"The social and economic changes that lead to birth control are not going to be undone."

Until the society itself is undone, that is.

Once we stopped being an agrarian society, large families went from being an economic plus to a minus . . . .

Why would this necessarily be the case? Four kids working in the factory would bring in more money than two and would be more easily able to care for dad in his old age. I think there was something other than economic necessity driving the development of the nuclear family. Rejection of the American understanding of the nuclear family of Indians living in the US seems to have worked to their economic advantage.

Just curious Rod--Do you and Julie not use any type birth control?

"Until the society itself is undone, that is."

So what's the answer? Send women backwards, into a time where they have no reproductive choices and their lives are controlled by reproduction?

That's always the problem in these "demographic winter" discussion, no one ever has real answers. The usual suspects blame the pill and chide people for being selfish and there is always the person who chimes in about how great it is to have a brood of 13 kids on a janitor's income, but what are the real answers here?

If families don't have more children because of economic reasons, then let's focus on the economics instead of going on some moralizing handwringing crusade about the sexual revolution and abortion. It the goal is to get people to be more religious--and there's very little data to support this hypothesis--how is that going to happen.

If we believe as a society that we need families to have more children, what are we prepared to do as a society to deal with the consequences of that?

Hmm, Provo Utah doesn't seem to be like Haiti and yet they have one of the highest birthrates in the world...

"Though I think this forwards - it's perverse to think that women are "forwards" because society grants license to murder our children."

And your approach--always coming back to abortion--is why these conversations never really go anywhere.

Children are an inconvenience. Usually a glorious inconvenience, but an inconvenience nonetheless. Most things worthwhile, at some level, are also a burden and inconvenience.

The reason contraception was seen as a major breakthrough was not because it meant men and women could have sex without consequences, but because it provided an answer for women who were trapped their reproduction. It provided an out for the woman with 10 kids and a husband who didn't make enough money to support a family of 3. It provided a way to pace childbirth in a more reliable way for the sake of the mother--and the children. It allowed women to have some predictability and control over their reproduction should they want to have a career and not be tethered economically and legally to their husbands.

The reality is that men's lives don't change much whether we have two kids or 10. There may be more economic pressure, but that's nothing compared to the impact on the lives of women.

So again, how to mitigate the impact of a policy that expects women to make reproductive sacrifices where they are the ones primarily harmed by it. Is it enough to say, "the future lays in your womb and thus you, and you alone, must make the sacrifice?"

And in a time of economic crisis, how do we tell people, "You need to feed even more children, clothes even more children, house even more children and if that requires you give your cut your family income in half, so be it."

Isn't it possible, Daniel, that social engineering (both in terms of government programs like social security and medicare and public school platitudes of "anything you can do I can do better") has caused people to make long term decisions that are economically irrational? Without social security would anyone choose to have less than 4 or 5 kids? Maybe the would. After all, we see people making economically irrational choices all the times in favor of perverse values. For example, the woman who breaks even on child care so she can have a job. That decision makes no sense at all. But chicks make it all the time. Why?

The reproductive "sacrifice" is a myth and a fraud. If the culture spent half as much time on a propaganda campaign of "children as investment" as it did and continues to do on "children as burden" this problem would correct itself.

There are 6.5 billion people in the world, 300 million+ of them in the US. Where's the demographic catastrophe? And yes, in 2050, there will be even more people in both the world as a whole and the US. again, where the catastrophe? Th population pf the US could fall by half and its population would still be greater than when we won WII.

The problem with depopulation is that the demographics become very skewed. After WWII the population was young on average, which meant a future. When the population is largely old with few workers to support sick and non-productive old people, there is a serious problem--especially when the young population is quickly shrinking even further.
As a mother--boomer generation--who has raised 5 children and is working on my PHD, I can tell you that there is time in life to have children and do other things you want to do. And we need to remember that children become a support instead of a burden as we age. We in the US need to pay attention to this problem because it sneaks up on societies and when it arrives, it is almost impossible to turn it around.

Of course, Humanae Vitae was written in response to the insistence that the Church acknowledge the need for guidance because women yearned to have control over reproduction and the church was offering nothing but pats on the head. Would it have ever been written were there not some pressure to acknowledge the need to manage reproduction and child-bearing?

Yes, NFP works for many women. But that doesn't meant there isn't a role for artificial contraceptives. You've created a false dichotomy.

That's always the problem in these "demographic winter" discussion, no one ever has real answers.

You have to look at this thread in the context of all the threads of the past couple of days, Daniel. Rod is, deliberately or not, going through his list of issues and answers that form and affirm his worldview. (There seems to be a bit of retreat to them.)

The emotional impetus of it seems to be that the the last generation that embodies the older world valued by American conservatives, predating Vatican II and the Summer of '68, is clearly dying and fading away. Poignantly Neuhaus, but also the Mayberry America ideal of the South Rod grew up in, even figures like Weyrich, Huntington. Here Derjassi is the skeleton he needed at the feast when contemplating contemporary Europe and the problem it poses to the desire for Christianity Resurgent.

As for answers, Emerson's essay "The Conservative" (easily found online) pretty much circumferences the issue. :)

"The conservative assumes sickness as a necessity, and his social frame is a hospital, his total legislation is for the present distress, a universe in slippers and flannels, with bib and papspoon, swallowing pills and herb-tea. .... (Conservatism's) social and political action has no better aim; to keep out wind and weather, to bring the day and year about, and make the world last our day"

Please, conservatives, please continue to blame the "chicks" for the fall of western civilization. It's working so well for you.

People do not make decisions, especially decisions about how many offspring to have, based on what is good or not good for the broader society. That consideration is not, never has been and never will be on the radar. It is a waste of time to think that it ever could be.

Birth control is a reality and for the bulk of the civilized population of the world an emminently desirable reality that is not going to go away no matter what happens to the demography.

That is simple reality and it would be wise if the social conservatives would learn to live with it, because they are going to have to.

So the people of the birthplace of Hitler and of some of the nastier xenophobes of the twenty-first century have stopped reproducing? I say nominate the man for a prize.

But not all of Europe is lacking for babies. There has been a baby boomlet in Scandinavia, hmm, where the state religion isn't Catholic. How odd.

"The conservative assumes sickness as a necessity, and his social frame is a hospital, his total legislation is for the present distress, a universe in slippers and flannels, with bib and papspoon, swallowing pills and herb-tea. .... (Conservatism's) social and political action has no better aim; to keep out wind and weather, to bring the day and year about, and make the world last our day"

Why should anyone be interested in what Emerson thinks about anything?

Has he built any hospitals, orphanages, proposed the framework that made possible modern science, and created orders of priests and nuns that preserved and protected the intellectual heritage of Western civilization?

In other words, you have as much a chance of producing a Benedict from an Emerson as you do getting Mozart out of the Sex Pistols.

Christianity and conservatism aren't the same.

Re: Nine kids is a better retirement strategy than $15K a year into a 401(k).

Nine kids is a near-guarantee of a trip to the poor house-- and that was true even in the past. Very few people ever had that many children (and the few who did were lucky to raise four of them to adulthood). The most successful strategy for beings like us with offspring is to have relatively few of them, but lavish resources on those few so that they will survive and prosper. In fact that describes the reproductive strategy of humankind as a whole (compared to, say, cats). We haven't done that badly at it either. And as for retirment, most people really do prefer their own income rather than a rocking chair in a drafty corner and some grudging handouts. Even before Social Security people did everything they could to arrange their finances for their last years so as not to end up becoming charity cases or burdens on their families. And it's not just the need to fund their own retiremnt which would be disastrous for people today without SS. The need to support their parents and grandparents would also crush most families. If you want people to have more kids don't do anything to make it more difficult, for crying out loud!

What bugs me about discussions about population decline and fertility and the pill and procreation, etc. is that the discussions on this board (and in some fundamentalist religious settings) leave me feeling this way:

I have zero worth to society because I am a childless adult female (who's been very moral and responsible her entire adult life).

In the minds of the zealots, I would have more worth as a human had I (a) married and given birth to a multitude of children (b) married and given birth to at least 2.3 children, (c) given birth to a multitude of children outside of wedlock or (d) given birth to at least one child outside of wedlock.

Until recently, I thought I was doing the right thing by my lifestyle. Now, I'm a loser with zero value because I haven't procreated.

Europe has about the same area as the United States with about twice the population.

If the population of Europe were to be cut in half - not suddenly, mind you, over time - the diminished population would have more space, more resources and would have less adverse impact on the ecology. After all, we're not exactly underpopulated over here.

Wow, This just brings back too many stressful memories of dealing with arrogant relatives, friends, bystanders, church members, etc. etc. etc. of 21 years ago when my yet to be wife and I were dealing with the subject. We eventually came to a conclusion which, we think, made most of our relatives, friends, and church members "concerned" (and made ONE couple we knew giddy)

So putting aside anyones personal opinion or decision on the subject...isn't it interesting that the "inventor" of the birth control pill regrets it. hmmmm.

Perhaps we (westernish folks)have been a little selfish in not increasing our DNA?

But my wife of 21 years (and 7 days) and I only have nine children.

This discussion has meandered all over the place. I think the point being made is that the maker of the birth control pill, like the maker of the atomic bomb, has lived long enough to see the negative or "unintended " consequences of his invention. It is a sad truth that Europe and eventually all the white West has chosen to limit reporduction to the point of extinction.....the question is "the extiction of what?"

Well, white European decent Westerners....that's what. The rest of the world is still going at it (babies) full tilt! So Mr. Djerassi is grieving the extinction of his white race.

I agree with Celtic ragon on this one. This will correct itself and white people and Christianity will continue but it will probably be Eastern and Third World style.

I don't think birth control is the problem causing the extinction of the white race. Just as guns don't cause crime anymore than flys cause garbage....so birth control doesn't cause falling birth rates....the people who make selfish choices do. There are many factors involved and the tool doesn't bear the blame for it's bad use.

So banning birth control should not even be part of the discussion. And only certain Catholics want to do than anyway. People need to be encouraged to see children differently....as a gift, not as a burden. But there need be no discussion of returning to the industrial age stair step families through the elimination of birth control.

Incidentally and on a completely different note....prior to the advent of industrialization when breatfeeding was the regular method of feeding babies, the average woman did not have 9 to 13 children....more like 5 or 6. Look at Eskimo records of birth rates prior to the introduction of modern foods.

Poor Mr. Djerassi....what a way to end your life....grieving your life's work.

Please. Birth rates are complicated phenomenon, related not only to the availability of birth control, but also to infant mortality rates, levels and kinds of economic development, social welfare policies, child care support, and female literacy levels.

Furthermore, scary graphics about the percentages of young versus old don't take into account changes in life expectancy itself. In other words, it's not just about the number of children born, but the number of old people NOT DYING. Increased life expectancy is good, isn't it?

People choose to have kids or not have kids for a variety of reasons, some--not all---of which are amenable to social policies. France, for example, is quite generous in its approach to family support, and has a considerably higher birth rate than Italy, which is comparatively stingy in its family and maternal support. I don't claim this as definitive, but it is, at least suggestive that governmental family policies may affect birth rates.

If a polity thinks that more children would be better, its members thus have a number of options in pursuing that goal. It could outlaw or make expensive reliable birth control; it could deny women access to education and employment; it could lay a special tax on the childless; and/or it could alter governmental policies regarding the family and maternal and paternal leave.

It is unlikely that western European polities---in which women are full members---would support regulations which limit women's educational and employment opportunities, or that its citizens would accept restrictions on access to birth control. They thus have to decide how to respond to changing demographics at BOTH ends of the spectrum.

To have to make those decisions is neither a crisis nor a tragedy. Demographics change, and societies adapt. What's new about that?

If you want to know why society is aging, consider that a person born in 1900 had a life expectancy of under 50 years, while a person born in 1990 has a life expectancy of over 75 years. Even if birthrate had remained constant, society would be aging.

So how is it that the only moral issue is with birth control, and not with those technologies that save lives?

It seems to me both have similar effects on demographics.

Re: It is a sad truth that Europe and eventually all the white West has chosen to limit reporduction to the point of extinction.....the question is "the extiction of what?"

Well, white European decent Westerners....

???
Last I checked the West and Westerners are not extinct. There are in fact more of us than there has ever been. Sometimes I get the feeling some of the posters are checking in from an alternate universe where cicrumstances are veruy different.\

Re: The rest of the world is still going at it (babies) full tilt!

Again, an alternate universe maybe? In this reality birth rates are falling pretty much everywhere, including the Third World.

Re: As for Fred, how lovely for him, and I'm sure his wife is a happy woman

The choies made by Fred and his wife should be respected every bit as much as yours and mine. The natalists should not disparage those of us who are childless and the rest of us should not disparage those with large families.

Re: My parents have nine kids

Erin, as per above, if that worked for your family, then good for you! It would not work for everyone, in fact not for the majority of people, any more than vows of poverty and celibacy would work for everyone. Child-bearing is a very intimate decision on which no one should be sitting in judgment of others.

Your Name at 7:53 am, when you say "The choices made by Fred and his wife should be respected every bit as much as yours and mine," I don't think you and I have a disagreement. One of my uncles has nine children. I'm certainly not putting him and my aunt down for that.

However, for choices to be respected, there has to BE a choice. Without birth control and financial independence, women don't have a choice. Other than entering a convent, of course, which I suppose is always an option.

Erin, I thought my post had made it clear that I know there are women who do just fine with bearing large numbers of children. That other women do not is a factual observation, not a stereotype. I think women have the right to decide not to have more children when they believe another pregnancy would be harmful to their health. You obviously believe that too, since you have chosen not to have more than three children at this point.

It does seem a bit odd to be lectured about the evils of birth limitation by people (Rod and Erin, e.g.) who don't have large families themselves. Is there some kind of rating system by which we can all be evaluated based on our reproductive score? Should we all be required to list our offspring at the beginning of each post, so everyone can see how we rate? Should I curtsy to Fred, while lording it over Erin, because I have fewer children than he does, but more than she? Will Loudon is a Fool 'fess up and tell us how many arrows are in his quiver?

The trouble with these kinds of posts is that they get tangled up in so many different threads. Are we doing it for Jesus, society, the white race, the Republican party, or just on general principles of female submission to the mighty fruit of male loins? Which suit is trumps? Please advise.

In what universe should we even care that the Western world is holding steady or even declining in birthrate?

Is this some sort of contest I'm unaware of? Are we in another remark of Brewster's Millions, but this time we we have to waste the resources of the planet as fast as possible, cause if we do it in 300 years we get ten more planets?

Either you guys are worried about this for somewhat racist reason, or you're worried about it for cultural reasons, which is pretty odd considering how many problems you have with Western culture.

Of course, worrying about it for cultural reason is a bit silly. Just restrict immigration.

Seriously, how about some explanation on what this disaster is going to bring?

Oh, and the 'demographic shift' you're taking as evidence for...whatever, is silliness. That just means people are living longer.

I just don't see declining birth rates as a bad thing, let alone "national suicide." Sure, there will be an adjustment period where the number of people in the workforce will decline & there will certainly be economic difficulties accompanying that, but what's the alternative? A never-ending increase in population? This kind of thing has to happen in every nation sooner or later or we will choke ourselves out as a species (at which time, the population would decline anyway).

At what point in the self-genocide of Europe will fair people realize that Pope Paul VI was a prophet in the most Biblical sense?

Every once in a awhile I'm inspired to go get my copy of "Contraception," by John T. Noonan, a work everyone should read who wishes to be informed on the history of this interesting subject. There I found the following information:

According to estimates accepted by demographers as reliable, the French birth rate per thousand persons was 38.6 in 1771 and had been falling slightly since 1750. By 1800 it had dropped to 32. . . . For the rest of the century, the decline continued to be marked. by 1829, the birthrate had fallen below 30 per thousand. It was never to be as high again. By 1851-1860, the rate was 26.3. . . . With a sharply declining birth rate and a slightly declining mortality rate, the point was reached at which the net rate of reproduction fell below 1. By 1850 the French nation was failing to reproduce itself. ("Contraception," Ch. 13, pp. 461-463 [paperback ed., 1967])

Churchmen bewailed the immanent catastrophe to society. In a Bastille Day speech in 1872 at Beauvais, Gaspar Mermillod, a Swiss cardinal, blamed contraception for the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war.

However: According to Wikipedia, in 2007, the birth rate per thousand in France was 12.91, which with the modern improvement in the mortality rate, gives France a fertility rate of 1.98 for 2007--the highest rate in Europe.

So, you see, Deacon John, church leaders have been predicting the extinction of the French people for over a century. Yet, mysteriously, they're still here. You might want to take the long view and hold off on congratulating Paul VI for another hundred years or so.

Sigaliris wonderfully illustrated my comment about "arrogant relatives, friends, church members, etc., etc.". This is the burden that we with large families carry: patronization, and condescension.

"...how lovely for him,..wife is a happy woman (were she to speak for herself, which oddly never seems to happen here...probably putting the kids to bed...after 9 children...chronically sleep-deprived, nutritionally deficient, overweight, and lacking in cardiovascular fitness...Fred's wife is probably one of the lucky ones who has muscles..resilience....discomforts like stress incontinence, etc..."

Many arguments, and retorts can be throne about on the subject of birth control. This issue is right up there with: when to baptize, head-coverings (God forbid) Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Homeschooling, which way to cross yourself, wine or grape juice, "and the spirit", speaking in tongues... Wow. There's just so many wonderful subject that really eat people up.

I find it interesting that many evangelical-ish Christians get really defensive about birth control--almost like they feel guilty about it.

I also find it interesting that the inventor of the birth control pill has observed that maybe it wasn't the great idea that he thought.

Fred
non-practicing agnostic

Why should anyone be interested in what Emerson thinks about anything?

Oh, he is merely the synthesizer of many of the different sources of American liberalism. You may not like the competition, but it endures.

His Divinity School Address predicts where Christianity is destined to go theologically when the process of Entzauberung of Modernity reaches and undoes orthodox Christology. You know, the exact thing people like you are paid to obstruct and deny in the American public square.

Has he built any hospitals, orphanages, proposed the framework that made possible modern science, and created orders of priests and nuns that preserved and protected the intellectual heritage of Western civilization?

Boston, Massachusetts, would be his version of Monte Cassino. :-) Still the liberal intellectual and scientific meetinghouse of the country. As well as concentration point of a lot of the socially significant science and successful social reform movements.

As for Emerson's following per se, every time a New Englander gets wide-eyed at the latest absurdity from Rome or wild occultism emanating from south of the Mason-Dixon line, Emerson is vindicated.

In other words, you have as much a chance of producing a Benedict from an Emerson as you do getting Mozart out of the Sex Pistols.

Emerson measured himself against more recent inspirational founders, people whose movements could contribute to and remain creative powers in what we now call Modernity. Since you probably can't guess this, Swedenborg and George Fox are the kind of people he considers his hero class in "The Conservative".

Not much remains of the Swedenborgians, but activist Quakers are still a subtle, resilient, and unshakeable moral force within American liberalism.

Interestingly, the Sex Pistols stole riffs from ABBA, ABBA derived their melodies from Scandinavian and German folk music, and Mozart did likewise.... Btw, in your Baylor photo you do look somewhat like John Lydon. :-)

iM SEXy
you WANT ME
i KNoW
THATS RiGHT
i CHARGE
REAL BiG
if yoUR CHEEP
DoNT BoTHER
iM oN Top
yoUR NoT
yoUR DoWN
iM up
ALL DAY
ALL NiGHT