I think the abortion access is a very relevant point. Most women, upon learning that their child has a serious genetic disorder (say Edwards syndrome) will have an abortion in the first trimester, rather than either experience a stillbirth or the brief and painful life of their child (90% of those born alive with Edwards syndrome die within the first year). This is not an option in states where abortion is banned and would be a serious consideration for me if I lived in a state like that.
And further, if there is a complication during the pregnancy that requires a medical procedure, doctors in states with these bans may not be allowed to perform the procedure. (I think this is more of an argument not to live in such states rather than not to have children, but the point remains.)
These numbers are comparing per 100000 full time equivalent workers while her number is comparing 100000 per women and girls which either means all women or women and girls within the reproductive age.
Many people seem to embrace risk minimization as an end goal, as Manne seems to do here. As you allude to, this forecloses much of what it would mean to live a good life. We can and should do more at the level of both public policy and culture to make having and raising children easier, but frankly one of the first steps should be rejecting this kind of pessimism/fatalism. We're all descended from people who mostly had it MUCH harder than us and yet managed to live lives and have children.
The response about not standing outside during a thunderstorm really does seem like missing the point. Sure, you shouldn't court extra risk of being struck by lightning for no reason. Similarly, you shouldn't court extra risk of dying during pregnancy for no reason. But what would that be? Getting pregnant is not done for no reason, as you point out. Maybe having a home birth with no safety preparations, and no plan for getting to the hospital if things go south?
A better analogy would be getting offered your dream job in Florida, but turning it down on the grounds that this is the part of the United States most prone to thunderstorms. It's true, but the risk there is still low enough that if there's a job you really want to do in Florida, it's very unlikely that it makes sense to turn it down on account of lightning risk. Likewise with deciding not to pursue a pregnancy you'd otherwise have wanted due to maternal mortality risks.
Yeah there are a lot of bad analogies I can't go through them all. I mean the piece completely fails to discuss the stats related to meaning in life and kids so like... what do you expect?
I enjoyed her piece while overall agreeing with you. She’s simply making a point I think and as I think she states and realizes none of this is really relevant if “you want a child.”
This is an interesting and needed perspective to add to the debate, thank you! I would just add two things that I'm interested to get your thoughts about :
(1) Technology should not be the only channel we turn to in order to help us mitigate the great emotional, financial, personal setbacks that many women go through when they have children. Of course, advancements in fertility tech and egg-freezing can help us with things like women having children in the 'prime' of their careers, as you mentioned in a previous article, but this can only solve a small amount of the problem. The real mountain is societally reshaping the way we view parenting, and care work more generally, as something deeply valuable (as valuable, if not much more, as the creation of monetary value through paid work), necessary, and which requires collective implication. That particularly involves getting men to be as involved as women (bar the things they can't do for obvious biological reasons). In that same article, you wrote "no matter how much social conditioning one might desire to impose upon the world, the simple reality is that women seem to enjoy raising their own children and that they probably will always, on average, spend more time with them". I think this is very unambitious from a feminist perspective. Don't many men also enjoy raising their own children? It seems too easy to paint these things as 'the simple reality', which implies a fatality, when what we need is more creative thinking in order to bring about a society where everyone is involved in care.
(2) This is more minor, but your point about 'one shouldn't make life changing decisions based on whether their favourite candidate is in power' struck me as a bit unfair. You can be 'directly affected' in ways other than your net worth decreasing - for example, you might not want to bring a child into the world knowing that state funding for childcare is being slashed.
That's a fair point. It's still very small. And Kate discusses a lot abt how this is much larger in the Us but the Saloni article explains how it's in large part due to measurement differences between countries as to what counts as maternal mortality
But this argument, even if we accepted that US maternal deaths are higher than in other countries, does not really make sense to me. Firstly, life is not about minimizing risk. We need to balance this against the positives! Secondly, whether mortality rates from pregnancy are slightly higher in your country than another one, when very small in the absolute, should not detract you from doing something as life-changing as having a child. It’s the equivalent of making choices based on comparing yourself to others instead of some internal sense of what is, on aggregate, good for you.
It's about half as dangerous as being a roofer, and comparable to being a driver (per data in another comment). And I definitely know people who feel roofing is too dangerous to want to do it for a living.
I think you are right overall that the positives outweigh the negatives (I have 3 kids myself!) but I also think you are a bit glib about the risks.
I think the abortion access is a very relevant point. Most women, upon learning that their child has a serious genetic disorder (say Edwards syndrome) will have an abortion in the first trimester, rather than either experience a stillbirth or the brief and painful life of their child (90% of those born alive with Edwards syndrome die within the first year). This is not an option in states where abortion is banned and would be a serious consideration for me if I lived in a state like that.
This is a very fair point! But I think she was referring more broadly.
But thanks for pointing it out
And further, if there is a complication during the pregnancy that requires a medical procedure, doctors in states with these bans may not be allowed to perform the procedure. (I think this is more of an argument not to live in such states rather than not to have children, but the point remains.)
Yes, I think abortion is a relevant point which she is unreasonably discounting.
"1 in 100,000" To put this risk in perspective, here are some death rates for various occupations:
Logging 99 per 100,000
Roofers 52 per 100,000
Drivers: 27 per 100,000
Misc Agricultural Workers: 20 per 100,000
https://www.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-injuries/civilian-occupations-with-high-fatal-work-injury-rates.htm
Should note that these are *annual* risks.
These numbers are comparing per 100000 full time equivalent workers while her number is comparing 100000 per women and girls which either means all women or women and girls within the reproductive age.
Many people seem to embrace risk minimization as an end goal, as Manne seems to do here. As you allude to, this forecloses much of what it would mean to live a good life. We can and should do more at the level of both public policy and culture to make having and raising children easier, but frankly one of the first steps should be rejecting this kind of pessimism/fatalism. We're all descended from people who mostly had it MUCH harder than us and yet managed to live lives and have children.
The response about not standing outside during a thunderstorm really does seem like missing the point. Sure, you shouldn't court extra risk of being struck by lightning for no reason. Similarly, you shouldn't court extra risk of dying during pregnancy for no reason. But what would that be? Getting pregnant is not done for no reason, as you point out. Maybe having a home birth with no safety preparations, and no plan for getting to the hospital if things go south?
A better analogy would be getting offered your dream job in Florida, but turning it down on the grounds that this is the part of the United States most prone to thunderstorms. It's true, but the risk there is still low enough that if there's a job you really want to do in Florida, it's very unlikely that it makes sense to turn it down on account of lightning risk. Likewise with deciding not to pursue a pregnancy you'd otherwise have wanted due to maternal mortality risks.
Yeah there are a lot of bad analogies I can't go through them all. I mean the piece completely fails to discuss the stats related to meaning in life and kids so like... what do you expect?
It is relate the fact that women’s reproductive rights including abortion, contraceptives and bodily autonomy are under attack.
It also doesn’t help that pronatalist rhetoric among Republicans and right wingers is causing men and women to be suspicious of ulterior motives.
For most women, pregnancy and childbirth cannot be considered fully free.
But this isn't arguing against pro natalism. Many ppl have kids without being pro natalists
It seems Manne is feeling spiteful.
https://overpopulation-project.com/pronatalism-on-the-rise-to-counter-growing-push-for-gender-equality/amp/
I enjoyed her piece while overall agreeing with you. She’s simply making a point I think and as I think she states and realizes none of this is really relevant if “you want a child.”
This is an interesting and needed perspective to add to the debate, thank you! I would just add two things that I'm interested to get your thoughts about :
(1) Technology should not be the only channel we turn to in order to help us mitigate the great emotional, financial, personal setbacks that many women go through when they have children. Of course, advancements in fertility tech and egg-freezing can help us with things like women having children in the 'prime' of their careers, as you mentioned in a previous article, but this can only solve a small amount of the problem. The real mountain is societally reshaping the way we view parenting, and care work more generally, as something deeply valuable (as valuable, if not much more, as the creation of monetary value through paid work), necessary, and which requires collective implication. That particularly involves getting men to be as involved as women (bar the things they can't do for obvious biological reasons). In that same article, you wrote "no matter how much social conditioning one might desire to impose upon the world, the simple reality is that women seem to enjoy raising their own children and that they probably will always, on average, spend more time with them". I think this is very unambitious from a feminist perspective. Don't many men also enjoy raising their own children? It seems too easy to paint these things as 'the simple reality', which implies a fatality, when what we need is more creative thinking in order to bring about a society where everyone is involved in care.
(2) This is more minor, but your point about 'one shouldn't make life changing decisions based on whether their favourite candidate is in power' struck me as a bit unfair. You can be 'directly affected' in ways other than your net worth decreasing - for example, you might not want to bring a child into the world knowing that state funding for childcare is being slashed.
Manne seems to always want to farm out personal thoughts feelings and actions to external pressures, which is of course her free choice to make.
Did her article offer a level a risk she would find acceptable?
Fertility rates aren't any higher in countries with lower reported maternal mortality rates.
If the situation is better in other developed countries, it's still certainly better here than in the past and in developing countries.
Where did you get the “1 in 100000” statistics?
In 2022, the maternal mortality rate was 22.3 per 100000 live birth.
https://ourworldindata.org/rise-us-maternal-mortality-rates-measurement
This is per woman. But Kate makes a big point out of it being higher in US and the author explains why it's not
Per 100000 women and girls. I feel comparing live birth is far better.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2022/maternal-mortality-rates-2022.pdf
That's a fair point. It's still very small. And Kate discusses a lot abt how this is much larger in the Us but the Saloni article explains how it's in large part due to measurement differences between countries as to what counts as maternal mortality
And
But this argument, even if we accepted that US maternal deaths are higher than in other countries, does not really make sense to me. Firstly, life is not about minimizing risk. We need to balance this against the positives! Secondly, whether mortality rates from pregnancy are slightly higher in your country than another one, when very small in the absolute, should not detract you from doing something as life-changing as having a child. It’s the equivalent of making choices based on comparing yourself to others instead of some internal sense of what is, on aggregate, good for you.
It's about half as dangerous as being a roofer, and comparable to being a driver (per data in another comment). And I definitely know people who feel roofing is too dangerous to want to do it for a living.
I think you are right overall that the positives outweigh the negatives (I have 3 kids myself!) but I also think you are a bit glib about the risks.