Expensive Motherhood.

cross-posted from TAPPED.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report that younger women had fewer children in 2008, probably because of the recession. Doctors suspect, of course, that younger women probably delayed childbirth for financial reasons. Meanwhile, the birth rate continued to rise for women in their 40s. (It has been rising for years, partly because of advances in fertility treatments.) Here’s the easy answer for why women in their 40s didn’t slow down during the downturn, from the AP story: “‘You get to the point where biological clock starts ticking and people realize they have to do it,’ said [James] Trussell, who was not involved in the research.” Yes, because we all know that’s our sole reason for being.

The idea that women take their finances into consideration when they make family planning decisions shouldn’t be a huge shocker to anyone by now, but it usually pops up in stories about whether bad economic times up the abortion rate. Whether women can afford a child is a big reason behind why many decide to have abortions. And that makes total sense. According to federal government figures, it costs $196,010 for a low-income family to raise a child over his or her lifetime, and $269,040 for middle-income families. With figures like that, condescending conversations about personal responsibility and self-sacrifice don’t really mean much.

Again, with this piece, as in so many others, the mostly male doctors give the looming fertility clock tower the central role, reminding women that if they wait until their early 40s, they might not have another chance. That’s why doctors hypothesize that women continued to have babies in their 40s despite the bad economic climate. But it also seems possible that women in their 40s were financially secure enough not to have to worry about what was going on in the broader economy.

  • -k-

    I’m not sure I understand this, unless it’s just an argument for other explanations to be taken into consideration in these pieces. An argument against the idea that time is, in fact, a major factor in the decision-making process for women who are in their 40s and want to bear children- which is what Trussell seems to be saying- doesn’t make as much sense to me.

    • quadmoniker

      I hate the hysterical tone of all these pieces (DON’T WAIT TO HAVE CHILDREN, LADIES!) when the mostly male researchers don’t always bother to ask the women why they’re having children.

  • “But it also seems possible that women in their 40s were financially secure enough not to have to worry about what was going on in the broader economy.”

    This was the first thing that popped into my head, but they decide to go with the ticking clock thing. guh.

    And, yeah – the issue of financing pregnancy/childbirth is just *one* major reason my uterus is on lockdown.

  • Yeah people are realizing that their things are more costly than they really understand and they are shutting down the factory. As a mom of 3 money is always tight and as they get older it doesn’t get any easier. If I every have another child, it won’t be till I am around 40,l hmmm who knows.

    Tiffany
    http://liferequiresmorechocolate.blogspot.com

  • Scipio Africanus

    It’s probably a mixture of both.

  • Lisa

    Interesting. One thing that I find, interesting is,that back in the day, my grandmother had 12 children. She started in her early 20’s (she went to college and didn’t have any until she finished) and kept having until she was in her early-mid 40’s. I know she wasn’t the only one and lots of women had very big families for a very long time. So why is it so much harder for women to get pregnant now in their 40’s? Is it that people are trying too hard (I always hear the stories about the couples trying and trying and then adopting and then shortly after they have their adopted child, they have a biological one), have our bodies changed, were my grandmother and others like her just numerous outliers , was it that due to lack of birth control and women not having hysterectomies back in the day? What is it?

    I also personally understand the waiting until you can afford it b/c I’m single and can barely support me and my cat so having a kid too would be very, very difficult but maybe it would be easier in a few years.

    • quadmoniker

      I actually don’t think it’s any harder. I think the narrative is that it’s harder. Also, in the past women would have started having children earlier, so if they were unable to have children in their 40s it wasn’t a big deal (I’m always trying to argue that it’s actually not that big a deal now), it was just the time they stopped having children.

      • lsn

        I agree that it’s probably not any harder. But:

        if they were unable to have children in their 40s it wasn’t a big deal (I’m always trying to argue that it’s actually not that big a deal now)

        if you’re the one trying to have children and being unable to, whether you’re in your 20s or 30s or 40s – well, it’s a big deal. If of course you don’t want children or are fine either way, then yeah, it’s not. But if you’ve been trying for 10 years and are rapidly approaching menopause then believe me, it’s a big deal.

  • tabitha

    i’m not sure why the explanation can’t be two-fold.

    i believe that women typically delay child birth to ensure that they are in a strong financial position when starting a family. however, after 40, the ticking clock is a REAL fear. she has a much higher chance of infertility and birth defects. fertility treatments are incredibly expensive. this post seems to be denying basic biology. any woman who wants children has to be aware of the biological limitations of older age when decisiding to start a family

    the truth is- this delay costs. this costs could come in the form of the energy it takes to keep up with a child at an older age while maintaining a career- giving up a career to stay home- staying on the career path but paying for nanny costs.

    women pay either way. if a woman chooses to start a family earlier, she pays in career delays. if she takes any time off to stay home, her career is derailed and she is discriminated against going back into the work force. she might not have the resources to do additional activities for the child or send the child to better schools.

    all that to say– there isn’t just one answer. there are many and they generally inform each other.

  • tabitha

    just to add. i think most college educated, career oriented women are not considering children in their 20’s. in your 20’s it seems as i you have all the time in the world. when we hit our 30’s we are suddenly aware of all he stats and the clock. i believe shortly after 30 is where women begin doing the math. are they in long term, stable relationships? are they in a relationships headed towards marriage. where does their partner stand financially. how financially healthy are they themselves. can they afford a home? if they are married in X years, when will they have a child? add a year of pregnancy.

    the clock start ticking in all areas of their lives. parts of it that they always assumed would eventually come together have to now be calculated…

  • quadmoniker

    This was the second post I did on this topic. The first one was here.