“Domestic supply of infants”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys are nuts. This is an issue facing many, many nations. It isn't about religion or Evangelicals. It's about resources any nation needs, no different from gas or food.

China's population freakout: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/international/4299666-chinas-dystopian-population-goals-forced-procreation-and-industrialized-births/amp/

Korea: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp%3fnewsIdx=362679

Europe: https://www.ft.com/content/c11ef0af-717b-4266-817d-533426363aa7

Even NPR can discuss this issue from a practical standpoint and without being convinced it's a scheme by religious fantatics: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/03/141943008/when-governments-pay-people-to-have-babies


Fertility rates are a thing that are closely tracked for economic and security reasons. On DCUM, if you bring this up, you get a mixture of denial that the US has declining fertility, accusations of racism that have no basis since the color of the baby is immaterial to the overall rate, and accusations that this is all a scheme by Evangelicals. You all need to study up on this topic if you insist on talking about it. I wrote my masters thesis on it like 15 years ago; it's an actual issue that many, many countries have enacted policies to address. And yes, as much as people don't want to admit it, making abortion illegal IS one possible approach to increasing birth. Just like when China mandated abortions under the one child policy.

+1 My DC is studying this in AP Human Geography right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are nuts. This is an issue facing many, many nations. It isn't about religion or Evangelicals. It's about resources any nation needs, no different from gas or food.

China's population freakout: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/international/4299666-chinas-dystopian-population-goals-forced-procreation-and-industrialized-births/amp/

Korea: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp%3fnewsIdx=362679

Europe: https://www.ft.com/content/c11ef0af-717b-4266-817d-533426363aa7

Even NPR can discuss this issue from a practical standpoint and without being convinced it's a scheme by religious fantatics: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/03/141943008/when-governments-pay-people-to-have-babies


Fertility rates are a thing that are closely tracked for economic and security reasons. On DCUM, if you bring this up, you get a mixture of denial that the US has declining fertility, accusations of racism that have no basis since the color of the baby is immaterial to the overall rate, and accusations that this is all a scheme by Evangelicals. You all need to study up on this topic if you insist on talking about it. I wrote my masters thesis on it like 15 years ago; it's an actual issue that many, many countries have enacted policies to address. And yes, as much as people don't want to admit it, making abortion illegal IS one possible approach to increasing birth. Just like when China mandated abortions under the one child policy.

+1 My DC is studying this in AP Human Geography right now.

Making abortion illegal REDUCES birth rates overall

so many people have only linear first order thinking

When you make abortion illegal, men and women are more reticent to f**k in oecd countries.

If you want to increase birth rates, you have to keep abortion legal but reduce years/intensity of schooling

The collapse in birth rates in the us comes from 16-24 year olds not having kids like they did in the 80s and 90s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are nuts. This is an issue facing many, many nations. It isn't about religion or Evangelicals. It's about resources any nation needs, no different from gas or food.

China's population freakout: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/international/4299666-chinas-dystopian-population-goals-forced-procreation-and-industrialized-births/amp/

Korea: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp%3fnewsIdx=362679

Europe: https://www.ft.com/content/c11ef0af-717b-4266-817d-533426363aa7

Even NPR can discuss this issue from a practical standpoint and without being convinced it's a scheme by religious fantatics: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/03/141943008/when-governments-pay-people-to-have-babies


Fertility rates are a thing that are closely tracked for economic and security reasons. On DCUM, if you bring this up, you get a mixture of denial that the US has declining fertility, accusations of racism that have no basis since the color of the baby is immaterial to the overall rate, and accusations that this is all a scheme by Evangelicals. You all need to study up on this topic if you insist on talking about it. I wrote my masters thesis on it like 15 years ago; it's an actual issue that many, many countries have enacted policies to address. And yes, as much as people don't want to admit it, making abortion illegal IS one possible approach to increasing birth. Just like when China mandated abortions under the one child policy.

+1 My DC is studying this in AP Human Geography right now.

I don’t think anyone denies it’s an issue. It’s the exploitation by people who want to force women to have more babies.

[Anonymous]

Betsy DeVos has a relative who runs adoption agencies in Michigan. I’ve long suspected something strange was going on.

In Colorado, a couple tried to steal their fostered baby from parents who wanted their baby back. Thank God the bio parents won!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Betsy DeVos has a relative who runs adoption agencies in Michigan. I’ve long suspected something strange was going on.

In Colorado, a couple tried to steal their fostered baby from parents who wanted their baby back. Thank God the bio parents won!

In some online communities it is the custom for people to read whatever OP linked to before commenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a complicated issue.
Is it ok to create a baby who will not have a mother past the first minutes after birth?
Is it ok to leave the baby with the parents who are clearly not able to give her a good life?
Is it ok to deny parenting to someone who isn’t a biological parent but can give the baby so much more than the bio parents?

That’s not complicated at all. Yes it’s ABSOLUTELY ok to “deny parenting” to someone even if they’re wealthier than the child’s biological parents. Or do you think if Elon Musk wants to adopt your child he should be entitled to do so because he can “give them so much more” than you?

You are reducing it all to wealth.
If the bio parents are so poor that they can’t give the child stable housing (even if it’s a small apartment) and nutritious food; if they are so uneducated that they can’t give the child the basics before school; if they are addicted or mentally ill but keep having babies - absolutely the kids need to be adopted.
You seem to close your eyes to a common problem - people have kids but they can’t give them even the basics of stable lives.

That sounds like a societal failure. You don’t steal a woman’s child because she can’t feed it- you give her the d*mn food, you give her the d*mm treatment, and you make sure every one likes her gets fully educated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This is such a complicated issue.
Is it ok to create a baby who will not have a mother past the first minutes after birth?
Is it ok to leave the baby with the parents who are clearly not able to give her a good life?
Is it ok to deny parenting to someone who isn’t a biological parent but can give the baby so much more than the bio parents?



That’s not complicated at all. Yes it’s ABSOLUTELY ok to “deny parenting” to someone even if they’re wealthier than the child’s biological parents. Or do you think if Elon Musk wants to adopt your child he should be entitled to do so because he can “give them so much more” than you?


You are reducing it all to wealth.
If the bio parents are so poor that they can’t give the child stable housing (even if it’s a small apartment) and nutritious food; if they are so uneducated that they can’t give the child the basics before school; if they are addicted or mentally ill but keep having babies - absolutely the kids need to be adopted.
You seem to close your eyes to a common problem - people have kids but they can’t give them even the basics of stable lives.


That sounds like a societal failure. You don’t steal a woman’s child because she can’t feed it- you give her the d*mn food, you give her the d*mm treatment, and you make sure every one likes her gets fully educated.

The big one is an addicted or mentally ill mother. If a women just needs food and support financially, that is one thing. Addiction and mental health issues can only be solved with the will of the person who is afflicted. Many times people are not on board to solve these issues, even if they have a child. They will often neglect the child due to those issues. Ask me how I know. It's heartbreaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are nuts. This is an issue facing many, many nations. It isn't about religion or Evangelicals. It's about resources any nation needs, no different from gas or food.

China's population freakout: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/international/4299666-chinas-dystopian-population-goals-forced-procreation-and-industrialized-births/amp/

Korea: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp%3fnewsIdx=362679

Europe: https://www.ft.com/content/c11ef0af-717b-4266-817d-533426363aa7

Even NPR can discuss this issue from a practical standpoint and without being convinced it's a scheme by religious fantatics: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/03/141943008/when-governments-pay-people-to-have-babies


Fertility rates are a thing that are closely tracked for economic and security reasons. On DCUM, if you bring this up, you get a mixture of denial that the US has declining fertility, accusations of racism that have no basis since the color of the baby is immaterial to the overall rate, and accusations that this is all a scheme by Evangelicals. You all need to study up on this topic if you insist on talking about it. I wrote my masters thesis on it like 15 years ago; it's an actual issue that many, many countries have enacted policies to address. And yes, as much as people don't want to admit it, making abortion illegal IS one possible approach to increasing birth. Just like when China mandated abortions under the one child policy.

+1 My DC is studying this in AP Human Geography right now.

Making abortion illegal REDUCES birth rates overall

so many people have only linear first order thinking

When you make abortion illegal, men and women are more reticent to f**k in oecd countries.

If you want to increase birth rates, you have to keep abortion legal but reduce years/intensity of schooling

The collapse in birth rates in the us comes from 16-24 year olds not having kids like they did in the 80s and 90s

Infant mortality has already increased since Roe v Wade.

Forcing women to have babies may mean you have fewer babies in the long run: once the mother is forced to carry a baby that will die upon birth, will she really want to have another baby?

In the US, all it would take to increase the birth rate is paid maternity and paternity leave for at least three months, plus affordable child care.

My dh and I decided not to adopt because...it was too expensive, over and above the actual childcare costs post adoption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear God I cannot believe this has turned into a game of handing off unwanted children.

Can we just agree the goal should be to enable women to control their fertility so there are no unwanted children?

As an adoptee who was very much wanted by my wonderful (adoptive) parents, STFU.

+1 not an adoptee but pp is being incredibly offensive to all adoptees. They are wanted children.

They weren’t wanted to the ones that birthed them. I’m sorry it’s offensive, but gestating another human is extremely difficult and deadly work. No one willingly goes through it just to joyfully hand their child over at the end. It’s a primal trauma.

The fact that adoptive parents very want a child doesn’t change the fact that the child’s birth or later separation from their birth parents is an inherently traumatic and painful act from which some women never recover. It’s a joy built on profound sorrow. There should no thing as newborn baby adoptions outside of planned surrogacy arrangements- end of story.

It sounds like you are saying that all biological parents in the US should be prevented from terminating their parental obligations and therefore forced by the state to raise their children. Is that right?

Yes they are saying that and also implied earlier that if they can't/won't, their biological family should be forced by the state to take the child.

I'm a pro-choice adoptee, and find this person off the charts ridiculous.

I agree this poster is extreme. And I know some very happy and well adjusted adoptees. So I think it can be a great option.

But I also agree that adoptions don’t happen in a vacuum. There is the loss of the birth family which maybe traumatic to both the infant and the birth mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Making abortion illegal REDUCES birth rates overall

so many people have only linear first order thinking

When you make abortion illegal, men and women are more reticent to f**k in oecd countries.

If you want to increase birth rates, you have to keep abortion legal but reduce years/intensity of schooling

The collapse in birth rates in the us comes from 16-24 year olds not having kids like they did in the 80s and 90s


Infant mortality has already increased since Roe v Wade.

Forcing women to have babies may mean you have fewer babies in the long run: once the mother is forced to carry a baby that will die upon birth, will she really want to have another baby?

In the US, all it would take to increase the birth rate is paid maternity and paternity leave for at least three months, plus affordable child care.

My dh and I decided not to adopt because...it was too expensive, over and above the actual childcare costs post adoption.

+1 We have one child because we could not afford to have two children in daycare. It's a serious amount of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are nuts. This is an issue facing many, many nations. It isn't about religion or Evangelicals. It's about resources any nation needs, no different from gas or food.

China's population freakout: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/international/4299666-chinas-dystopian-population-goals-forced-procreation-and-industrialized-births/amp/

Korea: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp%3fnewsIdx=362679

Europe: https://www.ft.com/content/c11ef0af-717b-4266-817d-533426363aa7

Even NPR can discuss this issue from a practical standpoint and without being convinced it's a scheme by religious fantatics: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/03/141943008/when-governments-pay-people-to-have-babies


Fertility rates are a thing that are closely tracked for economic and security reasons. On DCUM, if you bring this up, you get a mixture of denial that the US has declining fertility, accusations of racism that have no basis since the color of the baby is immaterial to the overall rate, and accusations that this is all a scheme by Evangelicals. You all need to study up on this topic if you insist on talking about it. I wrote my masters thesis on it like 15 years ago; it's an actual issue that many, many countries have enacted policies to address. And yes, as much as people don't want to admit it, making abortion illegal IS one possible approach to increasing birth. Just like when China mandated abortions under the one child policy.

+1 My DC is studying this in AP Human Geography right now.

Making abortion illegal REDUCES birth rates overall

so many people have only linear first order thinking

When you make abortion illegal, men and women are more reticent to f**k in oecd countries.

If you want to increase birth rates, you have to keep abortion legal but reduce years/intensity of schooling

The collapse in birth rates in the us comes from 16-24 year olds not having kids like they did in the 80s and 90s

Infant mortality has already increased since Roe v Wade.

Forcing women to have babies may mean you have fewer babies in the long run: once the mother is forced to carry a baby that will die upon birth, will she really want to have another baby?

In the US, all it would take to increase the birth rate is paid maternity and paternity leave for at least three months, plus affordable child care.

My dh and I decided not to adopt because...it was too expensive, over and above the actual childcare costs post adoption.

No, this doesn’t work either. Euro countries have shown financial inducements don’t really move the needle.

The single best method to boost birth rates (it will never happen but it’s true) is banning women from going to school after 10th grade.

Keep abortion, keep access to birth control etc etc, financial inducements like you suggest help slightly at the margins but by far the biggest lever is how long girls are sitting their butts in a classroom

Now I don’t happen to agree with that “solution” but that’s really what really drives firtikitubrate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are nuts. This is an issue facing many, many nations. It isn't about religion or Evangelicals. It's about resources any nation needs, no different from gas or food.

China's population freakout: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/international/4299666-chinas-dystopian-population-goals-forced-procreation-and-industrialized-births/amp/

Korea: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp%3fnewsIdx=362679

Europe: https://www.ft.com/content/c11ef0af-717b-4266-817d-533426363aa7

Even NPR can discuss this issue from a practical standpoint and without being convinced it's a scheme by religious fantatics: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/03/141943008/when-governments-pay-people-to-have-babies


Fertility rates are a thing that are closely tracked for economic and security reasons. On DCUM, if you bring this up, you get a mixture of denial that the US has declining fertility, accusations of racism that have no basis since the color of the baby is immaterial to the overall rate, and accusations that this is all a scheme by Evangelicals. You all need to study up on this topic if you insist on talking about it. I wrote my masters thesis on it like 15 years ago; it's an actual issue that many, many countries have enacted policies to address. And yes, as much as people don't want to admit it, making abortion illegal IS one possible approach to increasing birth. Just like when China mandated abortions under the one child policy.

+1 My DC is studying this in AP Human Geography right now.

Making abortion illegal REDUCES birth rates overall

so many people have only linear first order thinking

When you make abortion illegal, men and women are more reticent to f**k in oecd countries.

If you want to increase birth rates, you have to keep abortion legal but reduce years/intensity of schooling

The collapse in birth rates in the us comes from 16-24 year olds not having kids like they did in the 80s and 90s

If you want to increase the birth rate, provide a solution to the daycare nightmare and reduce the cost of housing. Young people are stretched thin with housing costs, which make the breathtaking cost of daycare impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are nuts. This is an issue facing many, many nations. It isn't about religion or Evangelicals. It's about resources any nation needs, no different from gas or food.

China's population freakout: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/international/4299666-chinas-dystopian-population-goals-forced-procreation-and-industrialized-births/amp/

Korea: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.amp.asp%3fnewsIdx=362679

Europe: https://www.ft.com/content/c11ef0af-717b-4266-817d-533426363aa7

Even NPR can discuss this issue from a practical standpoint and without being convinced it's a scheme by religious fantatics: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/03/141943008/when-governments-pay-people-to-have-babies


Fertility rates are a thing that are closely tracked for economic and security reasons. On DCUM, if you bring this up, you get a mixture of denial that the US has declining fertility, accusations of racism that have no basis since the color of the baby is immaterial to the overall rate, and accusations that this is all a scheme by Evangelicals. You all need to study up on this topic if you insist on talking about it. I wrote my masters thesis on it like 15 years ago; it's an actual issue that many, many countries have enacted policies to address. And yes, as much as people don't want to admit it, making abortion illegal IS one possible approach to increasing birth. Just like when China mandated abortions under the one child policy.

+1 My DC is studying this in AP Human Geography right now.

Making abortion illegal REDUCES birth rates overall

so many people have only linear first order thinking

When you make abortion illegal, men and women are more reticent to f**k in oecd countries.

If you want to increase birth rates, you have to keep abortion legal but reduce years/intensity of schooling

The collapse in birth rates in the us comes from 16-24 year olds not having kids like they did in the 80s and 90s

Infant mortality has already increased since Roe v Wade.

Forcing women to have babies may mean you have fewer babies in the long run: once the mother is forced to carry a baby that will die upon birth, will she really want to have another baby?

In the US, all it would take to increase the birth rate is paid maternity and paternity leave for at least three months, plus affordable child care.

My dh and I decided not to adopt because...it was too expensive, over and above the actual childcare costs post adoption.

No, this doesn’t work either. Euro countries have shown financial inducements don’t really move the needle.

The single best method to boost birth rates (it will never happen but it’s true) is banning women from going to school after 10th grade.

Keep abortion, keep access to birth control etc etc, financial inducements like you suggest help slightly at the margins but by far the biggest lever is how long girls are sitting their butts in a classroom

Now I don’t happen to agree with that “solution” but that’s really what really drives firtikitubrate

Or how about teaching men to be equal partners? Teaching men how to be a good dad and actually participate in household chores and caring for others?

[Anonymous]

Daycare costs and college costs. These are a big part of why at least many MC families stop at 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Making abortion illegal REDUCES birth rates overall

so many people have only linear first order thinking

When you make abortion illegal, men and women are more reticent to f**k in oecd countries.

If you want to increase birth rates, you have to keep abortion legal but reduce years/intensity of schooling

The collapse in birth rates in the us comes from 16-24 year olds not having kids like they did in the 80s and 90s


Infant mortality has already increased since Roe v Wade.

Forcing women to have babies may mean you have fewer babies in the long run: once the mother is forced to carry a baby that will die upon birth, will she really want to have another baby?

In the US, all it would take to increase the birth rate is paid maternity and paternity leave for at least three months, plus affordable child care.

My dh and I decided not to adopt because...it was too expensive, over and above the actual childcare costs post adoption.

+1 We have one child because we could not afford to have two children in daycare. It's a serious amount of money.

+1 We have two but they are 4.5 years apart so they wouldn’t be in daycare or college at the same time. I had my first at 31 so I had the time to choose that spacing, but not everyone does.