The Pill, The Pope and The People: Humanae Vitae at 35

OTOH, there is a bulge in the fertile years due to the baby boom, so the 16 is inflated... so we're really just about breaking even.

That bulge has essentially passed, while the number of Baptisms has held up. The peak birth years of Baby Boom Catholics were 1955-1965. Only the last couple of years of these folks could possibly be considered still fertile.

For purposes of simple evaluation, its enough to consider a woman's fertile years from 25 to 40, when she is most likely to be married and having children.

The Brave New World marches on...

WebMD Health

FDA Approves New Birth Control Pill

Seasonale -- First Birth Control Pill Approved for 'Seasonal' Periods

By Jeanie Lerche Davis
Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD
With reporting by Gina Shaw.

Friday, September 05, 2003

Sept. 5, 2003 -- The FDA has given its blessing to Seasonale, the first extended-cyle birth control pill. For women who dread their monthly period, there's no better news - the pill promises to cut the number of women's periods to four times a year.

[snip]

In fact, the future likely holds even greater options, he adds. "This probably is the first step of a progression towards yearly ... periods, maybe longer -- absolutely."

"Even if a woman has no period for years and years, the safety has been well proven," Norris says.

[snip]

Humanae Vitae ping

Venture into the brave new world of contraception - from the newly approved "no period" pill to pills that may also prevent disease.
See our special report.

Both your calculations are interesting and informative, but you need to consider another factor: age of the mother. If a woman has 2 children when she is 38 and 40, that is a totally different situation from having 2 children when she is 18 and 20. In the first case, if her daughter does the same thing, she will likely be dead before she has any descendants. In the second case, she'll have grandchildren while she's still in her child-bearing years, and will see a fourth generation of 16 descendants before she dies at an average age.

Now that's the only reason I can think of to use the pill. Maybe I'll look into that. (Since I'm not yet married the birth control aspects don't matter either way.) Thanks for posting the link... though you probably don't think it's a good thing?

Italy has begun paying couples for each child they produce.

My current children will be out of the house before some of these "late bloomers" will have their children out of diapers and dressing themselves.

Now that's the only reason I can think of to use the pill. Maybe I'll look into that. (Since I'm not yet married the birth control aspects don't matter either way.) Thanks for posting the link... though you probably don't think it's a good thing?

God help you! The Birth Control Pill is essentially a chemical attack on the normal rhythms of your body. There is even less reason for the unmarried to take it, and risk its side-effects.

Would you injest poisons that harmed other natural functions of your body?

Italy has begun paying couples for each child they produce.

Germany has done this for a long time. The US does it to. Its called the "Earned Income Tax Credit" and "Child Tax Credit" and "Personal Exemption".

Each of my children, thanks to President Bush, is now worth about $1800 per year in lower tax payments. $5400 per year goes a long way towards running my current household of five. Its equivalent to 10% of my disposable income after taxes, 401K, pre-tax health insurance premiums, etc.

>>Both your calculations are interesting and informative, but you need to consider another factor: age of the mother. If a woman has 2 children when she is 38 and 40, that is a totally different situation from having 2 children when she is 18 and 20.>>

Well, that actually does add an interesting wrinkle to the way WHO anticipates future population: Let's call it "generational length." And I certainly expect its considerably longer in Italy than in the WHO's typical, undeveloped or developing subject nation. What it means is this: Italy's decline is even more dramatic than the births per 100,000 people statistic suggests, and yet it will contract slower than expected.

That brings up another issue: UN's population studies certainly don't wait until the woman is finished reproducing before they declare that she will only bear, say, 2 children. Rather, they anticipate how many children a population will bear based on how many they have borne and how long they have left to be fertile. Someone who is determined to have 2 children, but waits longer to have them will for years be lead the demographers to expect fewer kids. I bet that's how they underestimated the American birth rate (aside from the obvious reason: under-reported immigration).

By the way, I don't know if you caught it, but I did post that my own calculations show Italy's population taking 700 years to reach only 3, versus the figure I trustingly cited as 300 years. I guess this new, clever and seemingly quite sound logic would extend that to probably at least 900 years.