BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Atheist Poll - Birth control

The point I was trying to make is, I want to have the choice, not have it forced on me. I respect everyone's differing views, they create an interesting conversation, but am leaving this thread.

Keaghry -- I sure do understand your point about wanting a choice. Thanks for your ideas on the topic -- I think they were very valuable in the discussion.

Ms A: It�s wonderful to hear someone taking responsibility for their actions and being overweight is a good example. (By the way, I�m not overweight but if I were, it would probably also be due to chocolate!)

To all: I think Ms A's comments are very relative to the topic. Gee, I could have raised 10 children properly if I�d felt comfortable letting the school do my job! I cringe when school board officials suggest another program that places responsibility for children in the hands of administrators when it should be in the hands of parents. Sadly, this is because many parents are dropping the ball. But what can be done about it? There is the idea of classes but as we are noting in this forum, there are so many problems with this � content of classes, government intrusion, red tape, unnecessary for some but how to determine whom, etc. I�ve pondered the idea for a long time with no good solutions. So what are we left with? A trend toward more and more parental responsibilities being shunted to the schools�

But despite this alarming trend, I do see improvements. Some kids, whose parents are unable to guide them properly, are benefiting from the school programs. Child abuse is coming out of the closet and so is mental illness. Society is beginning to address its problems. There is a long way to go but I see some progress.

In the meantime, the children of those parents who do take responsibility are often stuck with a �lowest common denominator� method of dealing with the negative behavior of children. Personally, we try to accept this by reminding ourselves that we�ll benefit in the end but I must admit, it does get tiresome -- that�s why it�s nice to complain about it in a forum!

Getting back to the topic, I still see approximately two children as a good number for parents to do the job right!

I want to comment on this -

"2) Barring other factors the replacement fertility rate would be exactly 2.0 children per couple. The fact that some people do not have children, while others have more or less than the �ideal� number is already reflected in the actual rate (for example, 2.1 in the United States). Thus the rationalization that it�s okay for a couple purposely to have more than two children, because this will be �balanced� by childless couples is invalid."

That's actually not true at all. The 2.1 rate per couple has nothing to do with some having kids and others not having kids. It is an *average* rate per couple meaning if you had 2 couples and one chose not to have any kids the other couple would have 4.2 to even it out.

The reason it's *over* 2 is that a portion of children die. So you have to have more than 2 in order for the total adult population still stay even. If you only had an average of 2 per person, then when the portion of children died, you'd be losing population over time.

I can go into more details about the mathematics of this if it doesn't make sense to somebody.

Re Genetics and Intelligence:

"A recent study did find that a gene called FADS2 along with breastfeeding adds about 7 IQ points to those with the "C" version of the gene. Those with the "G" version see no advantage"

That is from Wikipedia

So yes there are definitely genes that affect the potential intelligence of a child. Undoubtedly we will find more over time - people who can metabolize vitamins more easily will have higher brain activity than those who cannot for example ...

Also many genes cause brain problems - i.e. genetics can cause "lack of intelligence". So therefore intelligence is genetic in the sense that you can inherit a not-perfect brain -

"There is no doubt that genes are in many cases the cause of an IQ below 100. The number of such genes already known is in the hundreds. For example, a mutation of the gene GDI1[3] is associated with an IQ below 70. The public has free and open access to the current data in the field through the OMIM database."

I want to meet that .1 child... ;-) Actually, it's interesting that it is now 2.1 children average -- when I was young, I recall it being 2.4.

Lisa, yes, nature and nurture all contribute to IQ. And interestingly, more educated women are more apt to nurse their children, which may well exacerbate the difference. And women who are given progesterone for luteal support in early pregnancy (as often happens with those with fertility problems) tend to give birth to slightly higher IQ babies. (Hmm... wonder if this is cumalative. Might help explain why my ds is so much brighter than his poor ol' mom!)

Lisa- Thanks for contributing some interesting posts to the Forum. A couple of remarks:

(1) Regarding replacement fertility rate, you dispute my statement that the distribution in number of children that couples choose to have is incorporated (along with childhood mortality) in the replacement rate. Then you give an example which shows that it is, in fact, one of the included factors. Since you’ve offered, I’d be grateful for a mathematical demonstration of how a couple who has one child by choice impacts the population differently than a couple who has two children, one of whom dies. My point was that the figure 2.1 is based on the current “random” profile of factors influencing family size, including choice, mortality, infertility, etc. For a couple to use that figure as a basis for having more than 2 children introduces a circular bias that distorts the data. For one couple to do this obviously has negligible effect. If it became a trend, then the 2.1 figure would no longer be accurate.

(2) It’s interesting to see a study demonstrating such a clear cut influence of specific genetic and environmental factors on IQ. While I have no doubt at all that both genetic and environmental influences are involved in intelligence, this kind of result rings my alarm bells. For one thing, considering the plethora of potentially confounding variables – some of which the study’s authors mention - I find it a little hard to credit that a test population of only 1000 children could control adequately for all of them. In addition, because of the notorious difficulties of measuring IQ convincingly (

Addressing #2 first, my father belongs to the triple-9 society (top 99.9% in IQ) and the IQ genetic issues are ones they discuss very regularly and in great detail. Many of the triple-9 members have multiple degrees in this area. I can try to gather up my notes on the topic and post them separately, but they are very aware of the issues of variables and have worked them through.

So just focusing on #1, replacement fertility rate. You weren't talking at all about deaths You said -

"Barring other factors the replacement fertility rate would be exactly 2.0 children per couple. The fact that some people do not have children, while others have more or less than the �ideal� number is already reflected in the actual rate (for example, 2.1 in the United States). Thus the rationalization that it�s okay for a couple purposely to have more than two children, because this will be �balanced� by childless couples is invalid."

So you said that a couple could not have more than 2.1 children, that this was an absolute maximum in order to maintain an even adult population going forward.

But this clearly isn't true. If we had a small population to maintain - let's say 10 people. Let's say they are evenly male and female and they pair up. If we have:

couple 1: 0 kids
couple 2: 3 kids
couple 3: 1 kid
couple 4: 2 kids
couple 5: 4 kids

That would give a new adult poulation of 10 kids. We would have maintained. You don't have to hit a ceiling of 2.1 kids. That is an average - not a maximum.

It IS valid for some people to have more while others have less. That's the meaning of the word average If everybody had a MAXIMUM of 2.1 kids we would end up with:

couple 1: 0 kids
couple 2: 2 kids
couple 3: 1 kid
couple 4: 2 kids
couple 5: 2 kids

and we would have a diminishing population.

The 2.1 figure is solely about the number of kids a given population of couples ON AVERAGE must have to create an adult population of 2.0 kids per person based on current mortality rates. It doesn't have anything to do with how many kids a family chooses to have or not have on an individual basis. It is solely about kid creation and kid death as they approach the age to create the next generation of kids.

In fact the replacement rate is higher in third world countries because their death rate is higher - not for any other reason. It doesn't matter if those families have more or less large families, it is all about the number of infants necessary to guarantee that 2.0 of them reach adulthood to start the next generation.

You also said "If it became a trend, then the 2.1 figure would no longer be accurate." - implying that if people had more kids, the US average mortality rate would change The mortality rate is based on infant disease and rates of genetic defects and proper nutrition and such - it has very little to do with people having 3 kids or 4 kids in their families.

Now I suppose you could go out on a limb and say if every person in the US suddenly decided to have 10 kids each that the sheer volume of infants would overwhelm hospitals and infant mortality would rise because there were less qualified doctors to care for the kids and less medicine to put into them - but that's a bit of a stretch