Confused—wealthy white women want supply of non-white babies?

[Anonymous]

Some say that is reasoning behind Amy Comey Barrett’s “supply of domestic infants” remark.

Why would rich white women be interested in creating a supply of non-white babies to adopt? I thought it was less likely for a non-white baby to be adopted than a white one? If these whites women are infertile, wouldn’t they just go to a fertility clinic? This is 1940 anymore.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

[Anonymous]

You think white people don't have abortions?

[Anonymous]

Domestic infants meaning white domestic infants are in short supply. Or really more infants born in poor households period, including white trailer parks, that will produce a generation of factory workers. The Heartland population is dropping like a stone - especially with the effects of Covid. Some of those Midwest states had more deaths than births in 2020/2021.

[Anonymous]

The babies and mothers of color can die in horrific poverty. It’s those white babies being aborted they’re worried about.

[Anonymous]

Republicans used to be able to run literal sweatshops because poor women were having 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 kids before they turned 40. Those bodies allowed for cheap manufacturing at extortionist rates. Now there’s a labor shortage AND they’re unionizing. The business leaders are terrified. How can they make hundreds of millions in profits while giving each floor worker a high salary?

Answer: More babies, lower worker age (McDonalds now accepting teens as young as 14), and lock them into backbreaking labor with no education.

[Anonymous]

It seems sensible to me, if clinical. America has a baby shortage, so restricting abortion increases the domestic supply. We need to sustain our population either through having babies or importing people. This isnt for wealthy white women, but for everyone. We will be in serious troyble as a nation, unable to sustain social security, unable to raise enough tax revenue, etc if we dont have more babies. To me, its an economic issue, not a racial one.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I understand the idea of having a cheap, plentiful labor force. But some are saying it’s ACB and her People of Praise or whatever that want a supply of babies for adoption is part of rationale for banning IUDs and condoms. I thought affluent infertile women just went to fertility clinics. Maybe it’s just some randos on Twitter spouting off but they are citing historic examples of white women taking indigenous and black babies. Why would they do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems sensible to me, if clinical. America has a baby shortage, so restricting abortion increases the domestic supply. We need to sustain our population either through having babies or importing people. This isnt for wealthy white women, but for everyone. We will be in serious troyble as a nation, unable to sustain social security, unable to raise enough tax revenue, etc if we dont have more babies. To me, its an economic issue, not a racial one.

I don’t understand how people can argue the Earth is overpopulated in one breath while saying we need to sustain our population levels in another? China and India have 1.5 billion people each. U.S. has 330 million. UK has 67 million. Maybe their populations should be lower.

If it’s a problem of who will run the factories in Iowa - pay the 60,000 homeless in LA to relocate and start jobs in granaries, on farms and in plants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems sensible to me, if clinical. America has a baby shortage, so restricting abortion increases the domestic supply. We need to sustain our population either through having babies or importing people. This isnt for wealthy white women, but for everyone. We will be in serious troyble as a nation, unable to sustain social security, unable to raise enough tax revenue, etc if we dont have more babies. To me, its an economic issue, not a racial one.

"Clinically" speaking, we'd be better off importing people. An immigrant has already demonstrated that they will work hard to better themselves. A child born to a mother who isn't prepared to raise one is a statistical risk, for the mother and the child. So unless SCOTUS are planning to force these women to put their kids up for adoption, it's hard times all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I understand the idea of having a cheap, plentiful labor force. But some are saying it’s ACB and her People of Praise or whatever that want a supply of babies for adoption is part of rationale for banning IUDs and condoms. I thought affluent infertile women just went to fertility clinics. Maybe it’s just some randos on Twitter spouting off but they are citing historic examples of white women taking indigenous and black babies. Why would they do that?

Look, I don't know anyone who is against abortion so that their friends can adopt babies. That's just not the logic. There are many couples out there who want to adopt, but that's a side benefit, not the reason for being against abortion. I can only speak about my immediate circle of friends, which is largely Catholic, but I personally know about eleven middle class and upper middle class families who have adopted children. Some of these children have been older, harder to place children (through their teenage years) and some have been babies. Very few of the adopted children have been white. Some of the babies have been exposed in utero to various substances and the parents knew this before adopting. A few of my Catholic adoptive mom friends have Ivy degrees, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I understand the idea of having a cheap, plentiful labor force. But some are saying it’s ACB and her People of Praise or whatever that want a supply of babies for adoption is part of rationale for banning IUDs and condoms. I thought affluent infertile women just went to fertility clinics. Maybe it’s just some randos on Twitter spouting off but they are citing historic examples of white women taking indigenous and black babies. Why would they do that?

Look, I don't know anyone who is against abortion so that their friends can adopt babies. That's just not the logic. There are many couples out there who want to adopt, but that's a side benefit, not the reason for being against abortion. I can only speak about my immediate circle of friends, which is largely Catholic, but I personally know about eleven middle class and upper middle class families who have adopted children. Some of these children have been older, harder to place children (through their teenage years) and some have been babies. Very few of the adopted children have been white. Some of the babies have been exposed in utero to various substances and the parents knew this before adopting. A few of my Catholic adoptive mom friends have Ivy degrees, btw.

PP here. I should also add that devout Catholic families don't use IVF. It's against our faith. They might use something like Clomid to stimulate ovulation, but that's it.

[Anonymous]

I kinda think they just want to make us all felons so we can’t vote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I understand the idea of having a cheap, plentiful labor force. But some are saying it’s ACB and her People of Praise or whatever that want a supply of babies for adoption is part of rationale for banning IUDs and condoms. I thought affluent infertile women just went to fertility clinics. Maybe it’s just some randos on Twitter spouting off but they are citing historic examples of white women taking indigenous and black babies. Why would they do that?

Regardless of how affluent, conservative Catholics like ACB are anti - IVF. They seek adoption as a means to have kids because they don’t believe in assisted reproductive technology. They want more babies, including white babies, to fill the adoption pipeline.

It’s 100% Handmaids Tale. Frightening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I understand the idea of having a cheap, plentiful labor force. But some are saying it’s ACB and her People of Praise or whatever that want a supply of babies for adoption is part of rationale for banning IUDs and condoms. I thought affluent infertile women just went to fertility clinics. Maybe it’s just some randos on Twitter spouting off but they are citing historic examples of white women taking indigenous and black babies. Why would they do that?

IVF clinics are going to become illegal in a lot of states when Alito’s little sht opinion is released. That’s not going to be an option for many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I understand the idea of having a cheap, plentiful labor force. But some are saying it’s ACB and her People of Praise or whatever that want a supply of babies for adoption is part of rationale for banning IUDs and condoms. I thought affluent infertile women just went to fertility clinics. Maybe it’s just some randos on Twitter spouting off but they are citing historic examples of white women taking indigenous and black babies. Why would they do that?

IVF clinics are going to become illegal in a lot of states when Alito’s little sht opinion is released. That’s not going to be an option for many.

I think they will be too far for most, but I could be wrong. 2/3 of my kids are IVF. So glad I don’t have any embryos in storage.