Page 13 - IJPS-7-2

International Journal of
Population Studies A theoretical review of childlessness

(Veevers, 1979). Furthermore, in general, people residing without children due to involuntary reasons fit into
in rural areas are oriented, to a greater extent, to traditional situations of sterility, while voluntary childlessness is due
family values. Communities are smaller, family ties closer, to continuous control of fertility through contraceptive
and the bond with the church deeper. Conversely, living in methods. In this second case, the individual deliberately
an urban area enables the adoption of individualistic and decides to renounce childbearing, a decision that remains
less traditionalist practices (Bloom & Pebley, 1982). throughout life. Veevers (1979) also suggests that women
Finally, the literature recurrently discusses the who do not have children voluntarily tend to belong to
relationship between childlessness and religion and a more independent group, with different attitudes and
documents a consistent negative relationship between values. Similarly, Waren and Pals (2013) conceptualize
these variables. Usually, those who do not attend religious voluntary childlessness as a biologically capable person
services, without affiliation, and who do not read the Bible who chooses not to have children. Moreover, following
are more likely to be childless (Heaton et al., 1992; Veevers, the line of thought of Veevers (1979), other authors
1979). Tanturri & Mencarini (2008) show that women define involuntary childlessness strictly as a physiological
without strong religious beliefs are also more likely to be disability, while voluntary childlessness deals with other
childless (or have one child). Accordingly, Veevers (1979) possibilities associated with the conscious rational decision
discusses that the most important distinction does not seem to never have children (Carmichael & Whittaker, 2007;
to be between different religious affiliations, but between Hakim, 2002).
two larger groups: those who manifest having a religious Different from the definitions of involuntary
affiliation and those who do not; and evidence points to childlessness exposed so far, the U.S. National Survey of
a greater propensity for childlessness among the latter. In Family Growth (a survey that collects information on
a similar vein, religious affiliation, religious attendance, marriage, contraceptive use, infertility, and pregnancy)
and religious salience tend to be negatively associated with proposes a broader characterization, not only restricting
attitudes toward childlessness (Uecker et al., 2022). it to sterility but including other feasible situations
(focused on women), such as difficulty in finding a suitable
4. Different types of childlessness: developing partner to share the willingness for childbearing; medical
a proposition of general pathways to counseling to not to become pregnant, since this could
childlessness lead to a situation that puts the woman and the baby in
danger; and women in a formal or informal union with
Overall, childlessness is characterized in the literature
as a non-event, or, in other words, the absence of at least 3 years of unprotected and uninterrupted sexual
intercourse who have never become pregnant. Voluntary
biological children, that includes a variety of situations childlessness, on the other hand, is defined as a context
and can arise from different contexts and motivations in which fertile women do not have any expectations of
(Houseknecht, 1987), as also previously discussed in having children (Abma & Martinez, 2006).
Section 2. An important differentiation of types of
childlessness involves the aspect of timing. According Waren & Pals (2013) and Bloom & Pebley (1982) also do
to this perspective, childlessness can be divided into not limit themselves to sterility when defining involuntary
temporary or permanent. The first takes the form of a childlessness and discuss that other circumstances active
momentary and reversible status, almost always resulting throughout the life course can also generate this specific
from the postponement of childbearing; the second means situation. Involuntary childlessness, in this sense, would
that the reproductive period has ended, and there is no include not only all individuals biologically unable to
longer the possibility of pregnancy (Bloom & Pebley, have children but also those who are forced by other
1982). Differentiating childlessness according to a tempo situations, in which it is not possible to have full control.
perspective is important for understanding the fertility These situations include financial obstacles, difficulty in
levels of a population (Agrillo & Nelini, 2008). Including finding a partner who shares the same family ideals, the
young women in an analysis that aims to measure need to allocate time and resources to child care, as well
irreversible childlessness, for example, even if this group as other responsibilities such as ongoing pressure at work
has reported not desiring (at all) to have a child, can and careers, which relates to the discussion of opportunity
generate problems, since their life trajectories could lead costs held in Section 2.
them to change their fertility preferences. Hence, as demonstrated, different situations and
Probably the most frequent differentiation between obstacles active throughout the life course can contribute
types of childlessness is voluntary vs. involuntary to if and how an individual remains childless, which makes
childlessness. According to Veevers (1979), women the differentiation between involuntary and voluntary

Volume 7 Issue 2 (2021) 7 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.v7i2.352