> lot of the fertility decline is the result of less unplanned pregnancy. Teenager's are far less likely to give birth. This is seen as a good thing.
When I consider the notion that impregnated 16(?)-19yo's were a primary driver of population growth, I find evidence for and against it.
Pro isn't about the number of births per se - it's about the number of child producing relationships that began after our school age daughters got knocked up.
Against is that the earliest (and latest!) birthing ages are historically highest for stillbirths and other life-ending birth issues. And youngest parents are (historically) the most likely to experience a first child death (that commonly ends young relationships).
Mitigating the 'Against' column is that modern medicine reduces those deaths.
Mitigating the mitigation is that the ability to access to modern medicine is in decline for young+poor parents - at the same time a war on kid-saving vaccines is heating up.
If I remember correctly, I don't think the claim was teen pregnancy was the "primary driver of population growth" but one of the variables that has a large impact on fertility rates. Most people see the reduction in teen moms as a positive development.
I also think the reduction in unplanned pregnancy to be a net positive. So 20 somethings finishing school before starting a family is good, but it's also probably resposible for fewer large families. I believe polling shows most woman want more children than they actually end up having. I'm sure part of that explanation is that people are starting families later in life.
> I don't think the claim was teen pregnancy was the "primary driver of population growth" but one of the variables
When I restated your original argument, I was careful to say "a" primary driver.
My own counter argument is based on worthwhile data but is submitted without the evidence thereof. Given that last, I'm inclined to frame your assertions in reasonable light.
When I consider the notion that impregnated 16(?)-19yo's were a primary driver of population growth, I find evidence for and against it.
Pro isn't about the number of births per se - it's about the number of child producing relationships that began after our school age daughters got knocked up.
Against is that the earliest (and latest!) birthing ages are historically highest for stillbirths and other life-ending birth issues. And youngest parents are (historically) the most likely to experience a first child death (that commonly ends young relationships).
Mitigating the 'Against' column is that modern medicine reduces those deaths.
Mitigating the mitigation is that the ability to access to modern medicine is in decline for young+poor parents - at the same time a war on kid-saving vaccines is heating up.