the problem is not that the life of a child can be reduced to a numerical value, it's how low your child's life is valued, in comparison to - say - your poodle or your range rover ...
You cannot put a value on the life of a child because they're not traded on an open market. Slave trade is the answer! Oh, no, wait, open markets are the answer. Or something.
I'm still confused (but it's true) that with a growing population, and men having children later in life than women, it is true that men have more children than women. Men born in 1901, on average, had a slightly higher number of children than women born in 1901. Does that mean men value children more?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-06-30 05:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-06-30 07:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-06-30 08:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-06-30 09:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-06-30 08:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-06-30 10:03 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-06-30 11:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-06-30 01:43 pm (UTC)I'm still confused (but it's true) that with a growing population, and men having children later in life than women, it is true that men have more children than women. Men born in 1901, on average, had a slightly higher number of children than women born in 1901. Does that mean men value children more?
(no subject)
Date: 2010-06-30 07:17 pm (UTC)