“Domestic supply of infants”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have heard about a woman with schizophrenia that qualified to adopt since her condition could be managed with medication
I am not sure if adoptive parents are aware that mental illness like manic depression and schizophrenia are hereditary. There was a lawsuit years ago. The adoptive family sued the adoption agency because they ended up adopting a baby whose mother was in a mental hospital and the agency did not tell them about this possible pre existing issue

I am adopted because of a birth mother wirh paranoid schizophrenia. Her mom illness was not adequately managed sufficient to raise children and I can say that with certainty because I had an open adoption and still know her.

In my state, I (my birth parents) were given genetic medical history for both parents and it was known to me along with known to my birth siblings who were adopted to a separate family. Included info about relatives with diabetes and other medical conditions that could be inherited. But this may vary by state and what's available, known.

Of note, while schizophrenia can be hereditary with highest risk to an immediate descendent, but also, the odds are still very low, especially with a stable family environment. None of us inherited it and can safely say that now that we're all in our 40s. I am very happy to have been adopted.

There is a genetic component to the illness. A study of identical twins found that in 50% of cases both twins got paranoid schizophrenia

I am well aware of that study, but the odds discussed are of a child to a parent with schizophrenia. In a direct child of one parent with schizophrenia, it's roughly 10% odds, but yes, jumps higher if more than one first degree relative with the disease. Adoption into a stable family environment reduces risk of the child becoming schizophrenic as there is interplay between genetic risk and societal factors. I'm pro-choice btw, in case anyone mistakes my previous sentence for an anti-choice stance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have heard about a woman with schizophrenia that qualified to adopt since her condition could be managed with medication
I am not sure if adoptive parents are aware that mental illness like manic depression and schizophrenia are hereditary. There was a lawsuit years ago. The adoptive family sued the adoption agency because they ended up adopting a baby whose mother was in a mental hospital and the agency did not tell them about this possible pre existing issue

I am adopted because of a birth mother wirh paranoid schizophrenia. Her mom illness was not adequately managed sufficient to raise children and I can say that with certainty because I had an open adoption and still know her.

In my state, I (my birth parents) were given genetic medical history for both parents and it was known to me along with known to my birth siblings who were adopted to a separate family. Included info about relatives with diabetes and other medical conditions that could be inherited. But this may vary by state and what's available, known.

Of note, while schizophrenia can be hereditary with highest risk to an immediate descendent, but also, the odds are still very low, especially with a stable family environment. None of us inherited it and can safely say that now that we're all in our 40s. I am very happy to have been adopted.

There is a genetic component to the illness. A study of identical twins found that in 50% of cases both twins got paranoid schizophrenia

I am well aware of that study, but the odds discussed are of a child to a parent with schizophrenia. In a direct child of one parent with schizophrenia, it's roughly 10% odds, but yes, jumps higher if more than one first degree relative with the disease. Adoption into a stable family environment reduces risk of the child becoming schizophrenic as there is interplay between genetic risk and societal factors. I'm pro-choice btw, in case anyone mistakes my previous sentence for an anti-choice stance.

I would not go that far or believe that much in statistics
The one person that I know who had this disease did grow up in a stable home, ganetic component came from fathers side of the family and had jumped a generation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Many people who are chronically poor are low IQ at best, low key mentally ill at worst. It is hard to adapt them to life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is pretty hard to stay chronically poor in the US unless there is another underlying issue like low IQ, trauma, mental illness.
So it’s safe to say that mothers who repeatedly and for long stretches can’t care for their kids (neglect) are not healthy functional adults.
Them proving they can hold it together for 6months or whatever time is needed to approve reunification is not going to cut it unless underlying issues are treated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Many people who are chronically poor are low IQ at best, low key mentally ill at worst. It is hard to adapt them to life.

So poor people are poor because they are dumb?
Yes, being poor because you needed to take out a student loan is evidence of low iq, you also took the place of a more deserving child of privilege who wasn’t smart enough to get accepted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have heard about a woman with schizophrenia that qualified to adopt since her condition could be managed with medication
I am not sure if adoptive parents are aware that mental illness like manic depression and schizophrenia are hereditary. There was a lawsuit years ago. The adoptive family sued the adoption agency because they ended up adopting a baby whose mother was in a mental hospital and the agency did not tell them about this possible pre existing issue

I am adopted because of a birth mother wirh paranoid schizophrenia. Her mom illness was not adequately managed sufficient to raise children and I can say that with certainty because I had an open adoption and still know her.

In my state, I (my birth parents) were given genetic medical history for both parents and it was known to me along with known to my birth siblings who were adopted to a separate family. Included info about relatives with diabetes and other medical conditions that could be inherited. But this may vary by state and what's available, known.

Of note, while schizophrenia can be hereditary with highest risk to an immediate descendent, but also, the odds are still very low, especially with a stable family environment. None of us inherited it and can safely say that now that we're all in our 40s. I am very happy to have been adopted.

There is a genetic component to the illness. A study of identical twins found that in 50% of cases both twins got paranoid schizophrenia

I am well aware of that study, but the odds discussed are of a child to a parent with schizophrenia. In a direct child of one parent with schizophrenia, it's roughly 10% odds, but yes, jumps higher if more than one first degree relative with the disease. Adoption into a stable family environment reduces risk of the child becoming schizophrenic as there is interplay between genetic risk and societal factors. I'm pro-choice btw, in case anyone mistakes my previous sentence for an anti-choice stance.

I would not go that far or believe that much in statistics
The one person that I know who had this disease did grow up in a stable home, ganetic component came from fathers side of the family and had jumped a generation

while that's sad, anecdote does not disprove statistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why is there a need to increase birth rate?

Only to create workers to support all the old people. Otherwise there is no reason, and in fact the earth’s population has exploded so much in the past century that it is not sustainable.

They are talking about birthrate for people with white skin. There are plenty of immigrants who are happy to take care of old white people in the US and europe, but the xenophobia makes this very difficult to execute.

Sorry, no immigrant birth rates have declined as well.

dp... but we have continued immigration. That's where the population addition is happening. Without immigration, the population would actually be either stagnant or declining.

What ^^PP stated is true. A lot of immigrants are willing to care of the elderly in nursing homes.

Nursing home staffing shortages

https://www.seniorly.com/resource-center/seniorly-news/states-hardest-hit-by-long-term-care-staffing-shortage

[Anonymous]

I really take issue with the concept of increasing the birth rate as a means to take care of elderly generations. That is not the solution we should be going for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really take issue with the concept of increasing the birth rate as a means to take care of elderly generations. That is not the solution we should be going for.

That's the reality. Are you willing to take care of your aging parents and ILs, especially if they have dementia or other health issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really take issue with the concept of increasing the birth rate as a means to take care of elderly generations. That is not the solution we should be going for.

That's the reality. Are you willing to take care of your aging parents and ILs, especially if they have dementia or other health issues?

I am not going to have more kids just for that reason

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really take issue with the concept of increasing the birth rate as a means to take care of elderly generations. That is not the solution we should be going for.

Tell me you have no understanding of economics without telling me you have no understanding of economics.


Old people do not work. Old people generally do not buy stuff. The big consumer group is young parents. The younger generation is providing *financial* basis for elderly care. Old people live on fixed incomes and depend on stable financial markets and stable economy, which is provided by the younger generation. It’s always worked this way in the modern era.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really take issue with the concept of increasing the birth rate as a means to take care of elderly generations. That is not the solution we should be going for.

That's the reality. Are you willing to take care of your aging parents and ILs, especially if they have dementia or other health issues?

I am not going to have more kids just for that reason

Then immigrants will care for you? Or will we pass assisted medical suicide? Old people are a drain on the economy. They don’t provide anything in terms of economic production.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really take issue with the concept of increasing the birth rate as a means to take care of elderly generations. That is not the solution we should be going for.

That's the reality. Are you willing to take care of your aging parents and ILs, especially if they have dementia or other health issues?

I am not going to have more kids just for that reason

Then immigrants will care for you? Or will we pass assisted medical suicide? Old people are a drain on the economy. They don’t provide anything in terms of economic production.

Agreed. So why is everyone trying so hard to join them?

I see no benefit to living into my 90s. I've seen what that looks like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why is there a need to increase birth rate?

PP here and that’s a really huge societal question in response to my personal anecdote. Personally as a third child myself I would have liked to have three, but between age, money, aforementioned spacing desires which are because of money, and some issues we had already identified with our second we chose to stop at two.

There will be broad economic ramifications to a declining birth rate. No global economic theories have a declining birth rate because it’s never happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really take issue with the concept of increasing the birth rate as a means to take care of elderly generations. That is not the solution we should be going for.

That's the reality. Are you willing to take care of your aging parents and ILs, especially if they have dementia or other health issues?

I am not going to have more kids just for that reason

Then immigrants will care for you? Or will we pass assisted medical suicide? Old people are a drain on the economy. They don’t provide anything in terms of economic production.

Agreed. So why is everyone trying so hard to join them?

I see no benefit to living into my 90s. I've seen what that looks like.

I have a disease that shortens my lifespan by 15 years on average. I will likely have a sudden death (massive heart attack). I 100% support assisted medical suicide. I would travel to Switzerland to do it if I didn’t have a reduced life span.