Turns out, actually having to give birth is kind of a drag, even in the best of conditions, and women who realize they have a choice in the matter are more and more likely to nope right out of it.
Or at least nope out at levels less than the current 2.1 children needed for replacement levels.
Passing a head through an opening too small for the task doesn't look appealing at all - I remember an account from Annie Lowery about a doctor cutting open her perineum as part of her delivery.
> The sense of being eviscerated, the room going Technicolor. I did not know I could feel so much pain.
> The extra anesthesia kicked in, so I keeled over in the bed as the doctor explained that he’d performed an episiotomy while wresting the baby out. I was insufficiently anesthetized at the time. “I’m sorry,” he said softly. [0]
And the alternative is getting gutted and sown back up.
But I can't help but suspect that it's the time pressure that really makes it infeasible. We can only juggle so much and it takes a lot of time to keep up with the demands of modern life.
Lack of religion/purpose is also probably huge. With all the reasons not to have kids, you probably need a good reason to, but maybe there isn't one.
Well, yes. Then again, it can also be the most rewarding, purposeful thing in the life of a female (and male) human, an experience of pain but sheer beauty.
Even in highly liberal/socialistic countries with low levels of religion women are opting out.
It all boils down to choice. And women are choosing "No thanks" in high numbers even in countries where you'd think most of the barriers are quite low.
yeah but the question is why are they choosing "no thanks"?
being pregnant and giving birth aren't easy, but we literally evolved specifically do be able to do that -- hence the big hips and other body dimorphism, etc.
it's a function of stress, economics, and loss of social cohesion via things like "the third place" and large family groups.
all of the people I know having kids live in small towns and have tons of relatives nearby, while the doctors and office slaves living in a tech-bro city on the other side of the country from their family struggle to have a cat.
Not sure why you've been downvoted. This seems like as good as any explanation. All the economic hypotheses are weak given historical data, and rely on "just rich enough". Several things happened in a reasonably short period of time that support choice being the reason: medicine, equality, and social change (ie a large, but not total, reduction in pressure to have kids by society and family).
No idea why this is downvoted. It's pushing a bowling ball through a narrow opening, it's REALLY painful. You sh*t yourself, bleed for ages, risk your life, seriously harm your body, you become a milk supplier... Then you need to become a mommy. If a woman isn't 100% with her children then there's constant judgement towards her as a "bad mother".
The reward is motherhood which is a 24x7 thankless job filled with dread about your kids. I'm obviously exaggerating and am happy with my kids, but I 100% get the people who choose not to have any. It isn't a bad choice.
Up until recently, many women felt they have no choice and the clock is ticking. The "you'll regret it when you're older" stuff, can be partially solved by freezing eggs (I know a lot of older mothers and we only started at 32).
Furthermore, in recent years there are many inspirational childless women who show it's perfectly acceptable to not go through that.
Agreed, Its a big risk giving birth to a child. Modern medicine has greatly reduced this though. But why put yourself in a situation where you may bleed profusely because of a tear or having to go through c-section.
Or at least nope out at levels less than the current 2.1 children needed for replacement levels.