If you are in your childbearing years and have a child or children, it may well be that one or the other has crossed your mind in recent months. The standoff about having more children used to be a he-said/she-said argument, either party taking the pro or con side. When I spoke with husbands and wives about their childbearing conflicts for my book, Parenting An Only Child, their remarks had decided emotional overtones:

--He said: "My mom had six kids and you won't have two."

--She said: "I don't care who you are, you can't be sane and work full-time because the majority of the child care and housework falls on the woman."


The economy has greatly altered conversations about family size. For many couples the focus is on financial aspects of stopping where they are. A few months ago I wrote Is Having Babies Recession-Proof? Interestingly, here and when the question was raised elsewhere, responses were divided between no, the economic downturn will not affect us and yes, we cannot afford another child.

--"[The recession] is one of the reasons that I am very reluctant to have a second child. How could I possibly afford another one?"

--"I planned to have my second kid when my daughter is around three, and I will go ahead with my original plan. When I gave birth to my daughter, both my husband and I were graduate students. What can be worse than that? At least we both have jobs right now."

A few months after those comments appeared online, the worry over job loss heightened. People don't know whether or not they will have a job next month or next year. Raising kids costs money and although we don't like to think about having children in a monetary way, being practical is the new thinking. And, many are turning to surgical procedures to eliminate the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.

Lesley Alderman, the mother of a 5-year-old and 15-year-old stepson, became pregnant unexpectedly at age 47. Her article, In Another Recession Sign, an Uptick in Vasectomies, explains people's reluctance to bring more babies into their families now and what some have chosen to do. To give you some idea of the rise in vasectomies performed recently, here is anecdotal data from her article:

--San Diego and Riverside Counties, CA Planned Parenthood clinics have seen a 30 percent increase in requests for vasectomies.

--Dr. Mark Goldstein at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center said, "I've been in practice 30 years, and I've never seen a spike like this [performing vasectomies]."

--At the Vasectomy Clinic in Seattle, Dr. Charles Wilson reports performing an average of 123 vasectomies a month which is a 13 percent rise over a year ago.

One of many reactions to Ms. Alderman's article summarizes how more and more partners with (and some without) children feel today:

"I had a vasectomy 6 weeks ago and much of the decision was based on economics. We have two young healthy boys, if money wasn't an issue we might try for a girl, but the expenses for raising children are considerable. We've started funding 521 accounts to ensure that they will have a shot at higher level education and between that and everyday expenses and the economic outlook....the decision was easy."

However, if you want to avoid having a child until you and the economy are stable, a vasectomy or tubal ligation is not the answer. Both are considered permanent choices and expensive to reverse. Plus, reversals are not always effective. If you're on the fence or can wait out the recession, look into other birth control options. Like the Great Depression which saw a marked drop in births, it's very likely the trend toward smaller families will be fed by this recession whatever contraceptive method you choose.

Are you postponing a pregnancy because of the economy or going ahead in spite of it? Have you contemplated having a vasectomy or tubal ligation?