“Domestic supply of infants”

[Anonymous]

You people are insane. The planet has too many people now. I hope we contract by at least 2-3 billion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, do you all remember Amy Coney Barrett’s note about the “domestic supply of infants” in her rationale of why Roe should be overturned?? Well, looks like there is more effort underfoot to increase this “domestic supply” as international adoptions are more restricted and fewer single moms in America put their kids up for adoption.

This is an ongoing ploy for foster parents to steal kids from biological parents who follow the full plan to get their kids back. Potential parents are going into the foster system deliberately to try to work the system to keep their foster infants. This is horrific.

https://www.propublica.org/article/foster-care-intervention-adoption-colorado

International adoptions declined years ago as did the ability to adopt and infant. That stopped well over a decade ago.

Nothing in this article is new.
This has always been happening.
You think it has not because you didn’t read a media story on it.
Some cases might local news coverage on occasion at best.

This is eye opening to me as someone who doesn’t follow this. 13 years ago my husband’s boss had many failed fertility treatments and decided to adopt. From the time she made this decision to the time she was holding a healthy domestic newborn was 6 months. I remember because I was newly pregnant with my when second when she had her last failed fertility treatment and she had her newborn a month or two before I had mine. Then, less than two years later the same adoption agency contact her to let her know they had another newborn about to be born, did she want it? She said yes even though the spacing was closer than they wanted. My sister’s friend has almost the exact same story with her two adopted kids. One set of kids came from Florida and the other from Oklahoma. In both cases the adoptions were finalized within 2-3 weeks of birth. In both families I’m sure it was very expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women are not supplying enough kids. They are the future.

Step it up ladies.

This is where you guys are ridiculous. No one is blaming ladies. In fact, men have declining sperm quality and that is an issue.

The reason people are concerned about birth rates is that programs like social security rely on the population being structured so that there are more young workers than old beneficiaries. If there aren't enough young workers, soldiers, etc then our ability to provide social programs is in serious jeopardy. This is just math.

[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.

You can also become more lax on immigration. That's another way to combat it.

True but other countries are doing the same. America is anti-immigration currently too. There is a global population bust happening.

[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.

You can also become more lax on immigration. That's another way to combat it.

True but other countries are doing the same. America is anti-immigration currently too. There is a global population bust happening.

Glad to hear it!
We have too many people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You people are insane. The planet has too many people now. I hope we contract by at least 2-3 billion.

You'll get what you want, but it's going to be incredibly painful for poor and vulnerable people.

[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.

You can also become more lax on immigration. That's another way to combat it.

True but other countries are doing the same. America is anti-immigration currently too. There is a global population bust happening.

The US immigrant population is at historic levels, so the data doesn't support your assertion that the US is anti-immigrant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are insane. The planet has too many people now. I hope we contract by at least 2-3 billion.

You'll get what you want, but it's going to be incredibly painful for poor and vulnerable people.

Forced birther positions are also mostly at the expense of hurting poor and vulnerable people.

[Anonymous]

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?

Not have a mother past the first 5 minutes? Adoptive parents are parents, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are insane. The planet has too many people now. I hope we contract by at least 2-3 billion.

You'll get what you want, but it's going to be incredibly painful for poor and vulnerable people.

So it’s a wash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m getting to the point where I don’t see infant adoption as something that should be allowed. The baby stealing is horrific.

It's always been evil and surrogacy is equally as evil.

Infant adoption is “evil,” but killing the baby in utero is the moral high ground? That is some amazingly twisted thinking.

Until you start being as vocal about the fact that guns are the no. 1 killer of children no one can take your concern for embryos seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are insane. The planet has too many people now. I hope we contract by at least 2-3 billion.

You'll get what you want, but it's going to be incredibly painful for poor and vulnerable people.

Forced birther positions are also mostly at the expense of hurting poor and vulnerable people.

Your either obtuse or you can't understand the issue. Declining fertility is a fact, not a position. It is happening regardless of how you feel about it. ABC cited it as justification to undo RvW, which means that being anti-abortion is her position. You will get nowhere fighting reality (declining fertility) when your actual issue is with that particular policy prescription to address it.

Let me help you: you can increase fertility rates without reducing abortion and the data suggests that they aren't that closely linked anyway. The people most likely to have abortions are from demographics most likely to have babies. The demographic least likely to have abortions is also least likely to have babies. So you can see that it makes more sense to use other methods to increase it.

There's robust empirical evidence that US women want to have more kids than they are having. So you can stop acting like women are being victimized by plots to increase fertility, ie, to give them what they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are insane. The planet has too many people now. I hope we contract by at least 2-3 billion.

You'll get what you want, but it's going to be incredibly painful for poor and vulnerable people.

Forced birther positions are also mostly at the expense of hurting poor and vulnerable people.

Your either obtuse or you can't understand the issue. Declining fertility is a fact, not a position. It is happening regardless of how you feel about it. ABC cited it as justification to undo RvW, which means that being anti-abortion is her position. You will get nowhere fighting reality (declining fertility) when your actual issue is with that particular policy prescription to address it.

Let me help you: you can increase fertility rates without reducing abortion and the data suggests that they aren't that closely linked anyway. The people most likely to have abortions are from demographics most likely to have babies. The demographic least likely to have abortions is also least likely to have babies. So you can see that it makes more sense to use other methods to increase it.

There's robust empirical evidence that US women want to have more kids than they are having. So you can stop acting like women are being victimized by plots to increase fertility, ie, to give them what they want.

We are on the same page. Forced birther policies will not fix the declining birth rate problem and may even have the opposite effect. We need to go back to roe and we will go back to roe sooner or later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are insane. The planet has too many people now. I hope we contract by at least 2-3 billion.

You'll get what you want, but it's going to be incredibly painful for poor and vulnerable people.

Forced birther positions are also mostly at the expense of hurting poor and vulnerable people.

Your either obtuse or you can't understand the issue. Declining fertility is a fact, not a position. It is happening regardless of how you feel about it. ABC cited it as justification to undo RvW, which means that being anti-abortion is her position. You will get nowhere fighting reality (declining fertility) when your actual issue is with that particular policy prescription to address it.

Let me help you: you can increase fertility rates without reducing abortion and the data suggests that they aren't that closely linked anyway. The people most likely to have abortions are from demographics most likely to have babies. The demographic least likely to have abortions is also least likely to have babies. So you can see that it makes more sense to use other methods to increase it.

There's robust empirical evidence that US women want to have more kids than they are having. So you can stop acting like women are being victimized by plots to increase fertility, ie, to give them what they want.

We are on the same page. Forced birther policies will not fix the declining birth rate problem and may even have the opposite effect. We need to go back to roe and we will go back to roe sooner or later.

Okay then your issue is with RvW and possibly adoptive parents (which I don't understand but whatever). Not with people who rightly point out that declining fertility rates are a problem for our society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are insane. The planet has too many people now. I hope we contract by at least 2-3 billion.

You'll get what you want, but it's going to be incredibly painful for poor and vulnerable people.

Forced birther positions are also mostly at the expense of hurting poor and vulnerable people.

Your either obtuse or you can't understand the issue. Declining fertility is a fact, not a position. It is happening regardless of how you feel about it. ABC cited it as justification to undo RvW, which means that being anti-abortion is her position. You will get nowhere fighting reality (declining fertility) when your actual issue is with that particular policy prescription to address it.

Let me help you: you can increase fertility rates without reducing abortion and the data suggests that they aren't that closely linked anyway. The people most likely to have abortions are from demographics most likely to have babies. The demographic least likely to have abortions is also least likely to have babies. So you can see that it makes more sense to use other methods to increase it.

There's robust empirical evidence that US women want to have more kids than they are having. So you can stop acting like women are being victimized by plots to increase fertility, ie, to give them what they want.

We are on the same page. Forced birther policies will not fix the declining birth rate problem and may even have the opposite effect. We need to go back to roe and we will go back to roe sooner or later.

Okay then your issue is with RvW and possibly adoptive parents (which I don't understand but whatever). Not with people who rightly point out that declining fertility rates are a problem for our society.

What is your position on roe?