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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Republicans don’t give a s*** what most Americans think. They don’t believe in democracy and as long as they wield power they will do what they want. And because they’ve gerrymandered and are experts at voter suppression they will stay in power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Its not good to rely on one stream of supply. Germany tried to import their lost population when they fell below replacement rate, and its been a rough adjustment for everyone. Also, we get a good supply of Mexicans, etc who are cuturally similar to Americans, but as we need more and more, we will have to reach further away to attract people from cultures much different from us. That often fails. Example, Germany brought in a bunch of Syrians, but it was such culture shock that a large percentage ledt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Its not good to rely on one stream of supply. Germany tried to import their lost population when they fell below replacement rate, and its been a rough adjustment for everyone. Also, we get a good supply of Mexicans, etc who are cuturally similar to Americans, but as we need more and more, we will have to reach further away to attract people from cultures much different from us. That often fails. Example, Germany brought in a bunch of Syrians, but it was such culture shock that a large percentage ledt.

Germany also imports black and brown babies from the US, because our country is too racist to care for them/adopt them.

[Anonymous]

This entire line of thinking is such hands made tale for me that it makes me sick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The world is de-populating right now. Even India and China are facing issues. China’s population peaked in 2015. India is only at replacement rates. But population growth should be independent of the access to abortion. It is the responsibility of any woman to have a baby for other people to raise! It’s a choice that belongs to that woman. People who can’t have kids, sorry but that’s your problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The world is de-populating right now. Even India and China are facing issues. China’s population peaked in 2015. India is only at replacement rates. But population growth should be independent of the access to abortion. It is the responsibility of any woman to have a baby for other people to raise! It’s a choice that belongs to that woman. People who can’t have kids, sorry but that’s your problem.

No, it is not their problem. It is God's will

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The world is de-populating right now. Even India and China are facing issues. China’s population peaked in 2015. India is only at replacement rates. But population growth should be independent of the access to abortion. It is NOT the responsibility of any woman to have a baby for other people to raise! It’s a choice that belongs to that woman. People who can’t have kids, sorry but that’s your problem.

Fixed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The world is de-populating right now. Even India and China are facing issues. China’s population peaked in 2015. India is only at replacement rates. But population growth should be independent of the access to abortion. It is the responsibility of any woman to have a baby for other people to raise! It’s a choice that belongs to that woman. People who can’t have kids, sorry but that’s your problem.

No, it is not their problem. It is God's will

I don’t believe in god. But you can dump your infertility issues on another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The world is de-populating right now. Even India and China are facing issues. China’s population peaked in 2015. India is only at replacement rates. But population growth should be independent of the access to abortion. It is the responsibility of any woman to have a baby for other people to raise! It’s a choice that belongs to that woman. People who can’t have kids, sorry but that’s your problem.

No, it is not their problem. It is God's will

I don’t believe in god. But you can’t dump your infertility issues on another.

I can’t type this morning. Gonna go have more coffee!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is also why they never go after businesses hiring immigrants. They want the cheap labor so don't really want to stop immigration, just keep them illegal so they can't complain about being mistreated, low wages, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

McDonalds is going AI/Robotic/Automated, so they don't need the cheap labor.

[Anonymous]

The fact that adoption even comes up in this discussion about abortion just shows you how off the rails these people are. Why should my bodily autonomy depend on the supply you have of a commodity??

[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.

Anecdotal, but thank you.

I think the justices are making the case you are try9ing to dispel, very clear.

Just because it isn't your experience isn't supported by what they are writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The world is de-populating right now. Even India and China are facing issues. China’s population peaked in 2015. India is only at replacement rates. But population growth should be independent of the access to abortion. It is the responsibility of any woman to have a baby for other people to raise! It’s a choice that belongs to that woman. People who can’t have kids, sorry but that’s your problem.

No, it is not their problem. It is God's will

I don’t believe in god. But you can’t dump your infertility issues on another.

I can’t type this morning. Gonna go have more coffee!

It's God's will that they have no children. They should look at themselves and ask why that is. And find different mating partners. You know that's their right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The world is de-populating right now. Even India and China are facing issues. China’s population peaked in 2015. India is only at replacement rates. But population growth should be independent of the access to abortion. It is the responsibility of any woman to have a baby for other people to raise! It’s a choice that belongs to that woman. People who can’t have kids, sorry but that’s your problem.

No, it is not their problem. It is God's will

I don’t believe in god. But you can’t dump your infertility issues on another.

I can’t type this morning. Gonna go have more coffee!

It's God's will that they have no children. They should look at themselves and ask why that is. And find different mating partners. You know that's their right.

God gave us all kinds of medical knowledge and procedures to co troll our reproductive lives....like ivf which has helped thousand and thousands of families have a baby.