I have been listening and occasionally participating on this forum for the last six months or so. My wife and I are taking Y2K very seriously -- I'm at a 7 or worse. We are preparing accordingly. In fact, the major planks of our preparations are in place and I'm breathing quite a bit easier these days.

We are talking about having another child. Part of my thinking is that it might be good to get pregnant in the next month or two so that any complications that required sophisticated medical attention could still be taken care of while the medical system is still intact (we're homebirthers though, so the prospect of having a child at home is not a problem).

Obviously it would be stressful to have a newborn when the roll-over takes place (it's stressful in the best of times). But it's part of our strong beliefs to be open to new life and we really do desire another child. And our preparations are such that we will neither freeze, nor starve, nor go thirsty, nor lack light or basic medical attention (I was a medic in the Army).

I'd be very interested in your input, pro or con.

(And before any doombrooders flame me, please remember that if Y2K is as bad as some of us (yes, I'm one too) think it might be, we'll need plenty of parents who are bold enough to have children and lots of them, even in terrible times.)

-- Staying Private on This One (z@z.z), January 18, 1999

Answers

z...

"... we really do desire another child."

You anserwed your own question. Had it not been for our forebearers' decisions to have children during difficult times, who knows where this country would be today. (Now, there's a thought.) If you truly desire another child, and feel confident that you can provide the care and love, then, by all means, go ahead. Just my opinion.

-- Vic (Roadrunneris@compliant.net), January 18, 1999.

personally, i would wait until next year. in one year, your biological clock won't have run down that much; it's worth the wait.

-- jocelyne slough (jonslough@tln.net), January 18, 1999.

A friend of mine from way back had both her children at home. I witnessed the first birth and it was one of the most beautiful experiences I've ever had. When I became pregnant with my second child I considered the option to go the home birth route, but opted to go the modern traditional hospital delivery. As it turned out, my daughter never turned in the womb. She was in a "frank breech position" with her legs straight rather than crossed. The last weeks of the pregnancy I did exercises at the advice of my OB to try to get her to flip into position. She never did she was delivered via C-Section. With this in mind I would encourage you and your wife to try to make sure the delivery will take place prior to any Y2K disruption of health services. You are aware of the issues that may arise after y2k and self-sustanence(sp?) is something you've come to grips with. Nonetheless if it were me, I would have to wait a year or two.

-- Other Lisa (LisaWard2@aol.com), January 18, 1999.

We need to affirm life in the face of death, no matter what. And, in this case, it is still, honestly, only affirming life in the face of uncertainty.

Vic makes a great point. And let those who want to deny themselves to lovingly-responsibly raise children have dozens of them. Let those who don't, not. The children of the former will grow up to be unspeakably valuable to those who come after us and them, including those who choose not to have children.

Spoken as dad of five who would gladly have five more ......

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 18, 1999.

Well, my wife who is a midwife, says, ".... not dozens."

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 18, 1999.

"Damn the torpedos(sp) - Full spead ahead"

-- Duane (D@D.D), January 18, 1999.

Make sure you look at it from all angles.

Since you expect around a 7:

-How will your child feel being born in such times of chaos? Do you care what he will feel, do you still think it's for greater good of life vs. death? Will you be able to emotionaly deal with your child's feelings?

- Do you yearn so deeply for a child of your own that you could not consider adopting one who's already born, and need a home right now, and help surviving y2k?

- If things turn out like you haven't anticipated and your preparations are not adequate, will you be able to deal with seeing your child suffer, perhaps die, and remain strong enough to keep going yourself? How do you deal with guilt feelings of your own inadequacies right now?

These are just things I would ponder myself before I would proceed "full speed ahead". I have my own tresholds and you have yours. But thinking ahead is always a good thing.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 18, 1999.

z: "... we really do desire another child."

There are already over 6 billion people in the world. We are rapidly replacing every forest on earth with concrete, asphalt and pasture for the beefeaters. We are headed into Y2K and a global depression. Your statement, and that of some others in this thread, is delusional.

At some point, probably very soon, this fallacy is going to end. There will be no more women having 4,5,6,7, and 8 babies at a time. The next few years are going to teach us not to abuse the Earth the way we have done in the past.

I'm married and we have decided not to have any children at this time. I think you should at least wait until mid-2000 to see what the world is like.

-- a (a@a.a), January 18, 1999.

Don't agree, obviously, a, but it is true nothing like five kids to make me delusional .....

I have seen interesting studies on both sides of this issue, from the "earth can't sustain more than 2B people" to "earth could sustain 20B people if we were treating the ecology for doing this wisely."

In other words, how we treat the earth and whether or not to have children are not necessarily co-linked.

While mainly off-topic, or is it, I strongly advocate a post-Y2K future where we begin to think about "intentional technology" as individuals and communities. Thinking about family size obviously included, though it cuts both ways (large as well as small).

Heidegger's take on technology c. 1946 or so (a, you got me going here, sorry) was that mankind was (to pick up your word in a different context) delusionally and WITHOUT THOUGHT being swept up by technologism. He believed we would inevitably have to suffer through this for 'x' period of time until it became possible again for man to "think" about technology and "choose" technology. Maybe, just maybe, Y2K might shock us out of the strait-jacket, or at least a few of us.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 18, 1999.

Hell,no

Don't you think there are enough rug-rats in the world already?

Stupidity is what got us into thiw Y2K thing. That stupdity extends to the population/environmental problems -- caused by "I got to have a baby; the (fertility/age) clock is ticking; I got to fufill my womanhood/manhood; puke puke puke -- which will bite us on the ass with or without Y2K.

-- Dis (disgusted@putarubberonyourwilly.com), January 18, 1999.

Hell,no

Don't you think there are enough rug-rats in the world already?

Stupidity is what got us into thiw Y2K thing. That stupdity extends to the population/environmental problems -- caused by "I got to have a baby; the (fertility/age) clock is ticking; I got to fufill my womanhood/manhood; puke puke puke -- which will bite, is biting us on the ass with or without Y2K.

-- Dis (disgusted@putarubberonyourwilly.com), January 18, 1999.

No, Mr. Condom, actually I think you've been snookered into thinking there are too many "rug-rats" by a bunch of Rich White (Wo)Men who don't want any more brown or black people in the world. Look behind the population control agenda, folks, and you'll find racial eugenics at its heart. Start your research at http://www.hli.org/issues/index.html.

But no doubt Mr. Condom will be howling for his Social Security check until his last breath -- and with the same breath howling to "off the little buggers" that would have grown up to be the productive citizens to pay for it. The entire industrialized world (all of the West and now Japan and Korea) is dying because we've offed so many of our offspring (nice "choice"). We're becoming societies of old people. And the non-industrialized world is not dying because of population pressure but because we're so damn selfish that we'll send them plenty of condoms and IUDs but no meaningful help in building their own sustainable economies. "Keep 'em poor and make sure they don't breed too much."

There are a lot of really savvy people here to GI with respect to Y2K and (properly) distrust the agendas of the powers-that-be. I challenge you to distrust the agendas of the population control folks and take a look behind the so-called population problem. If you come at it with an open mind, you might be surprised what you find.

Sorry to take this off the topic of the original question.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), January 18, 1999.

How about adoption? There are a lot of babies that would otherwise languish in foster homes or orphanages that need good parents.

-- Karen Cook (browsercat@yerf.net), January 18, 1999.

Franklin: you must be crazy if you think population control is not needed in countries like China and Japan. You just shot yourself in your debating foot.

And I'll go one further...we already have PLENTY of abused unwanted children in this world. What would the place be like if NO abortions had been performed for the last 50 years?

-- a (a@a.a), January 18, 1999.

a,

I can understand your emotion -- it's an emotional topic. It's also not easy breaking out of paradigms that have been drummed into us our whole lives: The World Has Too Many People! Abortion Prevents Child Abuse (is that why child abuse has soared right along with the abortion rate?). Try to study these things dispassionately (like you did Y2K) and you'll find quite a different story. Check out the links above (especially the last two).

Simply put, population problems in areas like China are due to lack of freedom, not overabundance of people. You will find that Julian Simon (last link) demonstrates that hands-down. See if you can refute his arguments. I don't think you can.

Industrialized nations are aborting themselves to death; it's that simple. If Y2K doesn't bite us in the butt, in twenty years our government will be paying people to have more children -- it's already starting in some countries in Europe.

Basic freedom and universal access to economic advantage are the key to sustainable human development, not coercive population control policies that violate the most basic human rights. The population explosion is a myth. But don't take my word for it; do some research.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), January 18, 1999.

"Behold, children are a gift from the Lord. The fruit of the womb is His reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one's youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them; They shall not be ashamed. But shall speak with their enemies in the gate." Psalm 127:3-5

-- Mama (a@a.a), January 18, 1999.

Hey a,

Still think Japan needs a lot more abortions and birth control?

(The middle number is total population in thousands. Oh, and BTW, check out the U.S. We've gone negative too, which means that if Y2K doesn't blow our economy out of the water, our declining and aging population will.)

---------------------------------------------

The Worldwide Birth-Death 51 Countries Who Are No Longer Replacing Themselves

[Countries for which total fertility rate (TFR) is equal or less than replacement level (2.1 children per woman).]

Italy 57,241 1.24 Spain 39,717 1.27 Germany 82,190 1.30 Hong Kong 6,249 1.32 Slovenia 1,922 1.36 Greece 10,522 1.38 Austria 8,161 1.47 Japan 125,638 1.48 Bosnia & Herzegovina 3,784 1.50 Romania 22,606 1.50 Portugal 9,802 1.52 Switzerland 7,276 1.53 Russian Federation 147,708 1.53 Bulgaria 8,427 1.53 Estonia 1,455 1.58 Netherlands 15,661 1.59 Macau 451 1.60 Cuba 11,068 1.60 Belgium 10,188 1.62 Ukraine 51,424 1.64 Latvia 2,474 1.64 Republic of Korea 45,717 1.65 Croatia 4,498 1.65 Luxembourg 417 1.66 Belarus 10,339 1.67 Czech Republic 10,237 1.68 Hungary 9,990 1.69 France 58,542 1.70 Barbados 262 1.73 Canada 29,943 1.74 Denmark 5,248 1.75 Lithuania 3,719 1.78 United Kingdom 58,200 1.78 Singapore 3,439 1.79 Finland 5,142 1.83 Slovakia 5,355 1.85 Norway 4,364 1.88 Poland 38,635 1.89 Australia 18,250 1.89 China 1,243,738 1.92 Yugoslavia 10,350 1.93 Thailand 59,159 1.94 Bahamas 288 1.95 Sweden 8,844 2.01 Ireland 3,559 2.01 Martinique 388 2.05 USA 271,648 2.05 Malta 371 2.08 TFYR of Macedonia 2,190 2.10 Georgia 5,434 2.10 Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea 22,837 2.10

Source: Population Division, Department of Economic & Social Affairs of the UN Secretariat, World Population Propects: The 1996 Revision, Annex 1 (UN, New York, 1996)

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), January 18, 1999.

Seems to me that the poster's original question pertained to the wisdom of a) having a child THIS year...or b)waiting. The population rant is off-topic. A thread on population control and Y2K would be the place for this. Perhaps someone will begin one.

In answer to poster's original question...my opinion (worth plug nickel in truth) is: if you are indeed eager to have another child, and you know what all the rest of us do about the potential for medical facility failures post 1-1-2000, then you will have your child THIS year. If you are not afeared...then wait.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), January 18, 1999.

Karen, I agree with your post: why not consider adoption? There are so many "unwanted" children that could really use a good home, and their population will only increase in the coming years. I have some very strong opinions about this, but don't get me started.

-- Elena Mauceri (elena-mauceri@worldnet.att.net), January 18, 1999.

Franklin: I scanned Scarcity or Abundance? A Debate on the Environment, is that the one? A bunch of ivory tower mumbo jumbo IMHO.

How can you say overpopulation is bogus when we now have 6.6 billion and projections are for double that in the next 25 years?

You may enjoy paying your tax dollars to feed and cloth the third world, but I have better uses for my money. The US is subsidizing countries that would not be prospering otherwise. Same for welfare. Pay unfit parents to overbreed children. This is WRONG. Its a symptom of a sick society, Franklin.

What about the effects on the environment? Do you know how long it takes to replace an old growth forest? Do you know how long nuclear power byproducts remain a health threat? Did you know the world is rapidly running out of fresh water supplies? Have you heard of global warming or do you think that is a myth also?

I'm sorry son, but you are dead wrong on this one, and I don't see any middle ground.

-- a (a@a.a), January 18, 1999.

Convenient to dismiss one's evidence with a single stroke eh, a? "Ivory tower" and poof!, all his evidence is refuted. Too many straw men and false dichotomies there to slay on this forum, a. E-mail me at the address below if you are interested in a dialogue on this topic. I'll defer to the intent of this thread. (Unless somebody else comes and spouts a bunch of poisonous nonsense).

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), January 18, 1999.

Answer the questions I posed Franklin. Those uninterested in your diatribe can disregard it.

-- a (a@a.a), January 18, 1999.

Bravo, gentlepeople who realize they went tangential on the original poster. I suggest if you'd like to discuss the implications of population and Y2K you start another thread.

The voice of reason who regularly wears a sheet and stands atop a hill shouting love and inanities at the world!

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), January 18, 1999.

Ok, a, I'll take you up on it. But I'll start another thread. It may take me a few days, perhaps even a week; I have a deadline to meet for a Y2K article.

BTW, Z, go for the new young 'un. We need all the pioneer spirits we can get.

Bye for now.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), January 18, 1999.

Isn't this a decision for only you and your partner? Any one who would solicit advise from a group of unknown strangers on whether to bring a child into the world, does not have the proper decision making ability to raise any children. Do everyone a favor, don't have another child and help clean up the gene pool.

-- mt (wayoff@bas.e), January 18, 1999.

I agree with every one who posted here stating "NO MORE RUG RATS." There will be plenty of children left at curb sides, trash cans, and on church steps when Y2K hits. You believe it will be a 7, and that's not a bump in the road by any means. I don't think it will be fair to the child to bring him/her into a world like we have today. Maybe if and when things turn around and the future looks bright, but I just don't see that happening. By the way, I have 2 grown children and I wouldn't do it all over again. I love them, but the struggle for them is hard and it hurts to see them hurt.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), January 18, 1999.

One more thing.....Two of my neighbors down the road just had babies. They don't have a clue about Y2K, it will be a tough go for them. We live out in the boonies and life will not be easy.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), January 18, 1999.

Journier and ilk:

No population problem? No Y2K problem either?

I find that the people that want to increase the present population for 6 billion to 12 billion in 20-30 years are either:

1) Religious wackos preaching "go forth an be fruitful." Hey we've done that.

2) Liberal bleeding heart candyass pukes (do you sense my disgust with them?) hollering racism, genocide, whatever.

Neither of these groups has a credibility with people who think as opposed to being run by their creeds.

Damn right there are too many blacks and browns -- Way too many. They're what -- 70% or more of that 6 billion? We need another 4 billion and then see if they can get their act together?

And -- equal time -- there are too many whites, also. Using most of the world's resources.

What do you think the environment would be like if the blacks and browns got up to the white level of consumption?

The oceans are already dying.

Simon sucks. More people equals more prosperity? NO. More people means more resources required -- and more grabage to dispose of. There is a cost to garbage disposal. Did you Mr. Jerky Journier think that's free.

Or would you like to see the white (male) european backround people reduced to the level of Bangladeshians, Asian Indians, Ethiopians, etc.

Well, if Y2K is TEOTWAWKI, you may get your wishes.

-- (disgusted@putarubberonyourwilly.com), January 19, 1999.

To the original poster: I was wondering when someone was going to bring this topic up. You don't mention how many children you already have. All I can tell you is what my husband and I decided...we have a 4 year old daughter and are prepared for Y2K to be a 7 - 10. We would like another child, but have been struggling with secondary infertility for almost a year. I had an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy earlier this year that scared me in the sense that if the hospitals weren't working at the time I got to the ER, I would have certainly died. (Fraternal twins in one tube, no less, it had already ruptured and I was bleeding internally.)

Anyway, the thought of this happening with no medical facilities available scares the mess outta me, personally. We are not preventing another pregnancy, YET, but soon will. (Like in the next couple of months.) Another thing to consider: we have decided to hunker down in our suburban home near a LARGE city (Dallas) b/c we simply couldn't afford to move elsewhere. I have had horrifying dreams of abandoned children and babies and have decided that maybe my husband and I should think about the children we MIGHT have to raise should this be a 7 to 10. So we are laying in even MORE food and supplies (even considering formula and diapers if the budget allows soon) in anticipation of this possibility. Oh yeah and the birth control prescription gets filled next month! Got 10 refills on it! Yeah!

Anyway, that is just what we have decided. Go with your heart, but pray, pray, pray about it! Kellie

-- Kellie (bill_n_kellie91@hotmail.com), January 19, 1999.

If you both decide to try to conceive between now and about March - fantastic, I agree that the ability to keep the whole modern health-care system available as a backup (even if not needed) until mid Dec is a wise precaution.

But after mid-March to April (birth estimated late Dec through Feb-March 2000), back off of deliberately trying to conceive until things are stable enough for you and your wife to feel comfortable again past 2000. Nobody knows how things will stabilize, or if they will stabilize at what level, but you will know more then.

So try, if nothing happens this spring, then wait until spring next year, then try, try, again. I know it will be hard work, but keep at it. Be persistent. 8<). Remember, cooperation counts when starting endevours like this.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 19, 1999.

Thanks to all who wrote with fine and encouraging suggestions (ah, gee, what the heck...thanks to all the nasty flamers too -- I'm feeling generous today :-).

I'll let you all know what (if anything) comes of this. Obviously my wife and I have made our decisions about Y2K quite independently of what others think and we will do so on this question (BTW, for all you population control fans, *having* a child is a free choice too, so put that in your pipe and smoke it).

Comments regarding adoption are well taken; I suspect, however, that there is nowhere near time between now and the end of 1999 to wade through that bureaucracy (sp?).

Arguments along the lines of "how will the child feel?" or "I wouldn't bring another child into a world as nasty as this" don't carry much weight with me. If our forefathers and mothers had thought the same then most of us wouldn't be here. I do believe that Y2K calls for a much more rugged spirit than the "if this earth gets any nastier I'm going to off myself" attitude that is occasionally displayed on this forum.

I do appreciate the many fine people and penetrating minds on this forum. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

-- Staying Private on This One (z@z.z), January 19, 1999.

They weren't flames. If you ask a question, be prepared for a diverse amount of opinions. If you don't like the diverse answers, then don't ask the question. P.S. Rubber up for safety!

-- YouAskedForIt (YouAskedForIt@ohwell.com), January 20, 1999.

And another thing:

All you people with "fertility" problems -- wake up! "Mother Nature" is trying to tell you something!! Give it up! (And enjoy NOT having to put a rubber on your/his willy.)

"oh my god, I'm barren, sob. Please doctor help me fulfill myself." puke puke

Think about this, IF TEOTWAWKI, all you women who had more than one caesarian (I'll give you one) have birthed female kids more likely to DIE when THEY give birth, lacking the medical attention you had. You had birth canals too small or a genetic disposition to problem pregancies and births and you had MORE?

All you people with diabetes and you went ahead and bred anyway, your kids are much more likely to suffer loss of sight and limbs and eventually die grossly, lacking insulin.

And so it goes.

"To protect fools from the effect of their folly is to fill the world with fools" [Herbert Spencer]

Hey, I'm very likely not to make it, being old and not agile. So it doesn't make much difference to me TEOTWAWKI or not. But having seen the increasing stupidity over the last couple of generations, and being frustrated over it, I may get a chance to see a lot of it eliminated.

-- Dis (disgusted@putarubberonyourwilly.com), January 20, 1999.