“Domestic supply of infants”

[Anonymous]

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.

A little too extreme there. Adoption is sometimes necessary.

-Pro-choice adoptee who grew up knowing my extremely mentally ill birth parents and thankful I was adopted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Hello? Do you have a position on overturning roe?

[Anonymous]

And if we want to encourage people to bring more children into the world, do something about issues like climate change, guns, college costs, etc.

This is an odd comment, since our current environmental problems are laregely a result of overpopulation. We need population control in order to solve them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And if we want to encourage people to bring more children into the world, do something about issues like climate change, guns, college costs, etc.

This is an odd comment, since our current environmental problems are laregely a result of overpopulation. We need population control in order to solve them.

+1. Fertility isn't an issue, overpopulation couples with declining resources is an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Hello? Do you have a position on overturning roe?

Relax lady. I had to step away. My position is that it was a weak ruling that should have been codified in legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Hello? Do you have a position on overturning roe?

Relax lady. I had to step away. My position is that it was a weak ruling that should have been codified in legislation.

What does roe have to do with a declining birth rate if anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And if we want to encourage people to bring more children into the world, do something about issues like climate change, guns, college costs, etc.

This is an odd comment, since our current environmental problems are laregely a result of overpopulation. We need population control in order to solve them.

Lol.. solve climate issues? That ship has sailed.

[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.

People who fixate on declining fertility are almost invariably also anti-abortion. They glom onto “declining fertility” as a talking point to justify their desire to control women & fertility. Because of course “declining fertility” is almost always cast as the aberrant decisionmaking of women denying their “natural” role. What also makes me laugh is when these self-same people ALSO complain about policies designed to support working mothers like childcare subsidies. These “declining fertility” scolds are fixated on controlling women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People who fixate on declining fertility are almost invariably also anti-abortion. They glom onto “declining fertility” as a talking point to justify their desire to control women & fertility. Because of course “declining fertility” is almost always cast as the aberrant decisionmaking of women denying their “natural” role. What also makes me laugh is when these self-same people ALSO complain about policies designed to support working mothers like childcare subsidies. These “declining fertility” scolds are fixated on controlling women.

People who fixate on declining fertility are almost invariably talking about white people.

[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.

A little too extreme there. Adoption is sometimes necessary.

-Pro-choice adoptee who grew up knowing my extremely mentally ill birth parents and thankful I was adopted.

And ends well for the child and the adoptive parents.

Which is more than you can say to many babies returned to birthparents or warehoused in the foster system for years .

I think babies should be placed with a well vetted family, forever family within a very short window. Otherwise the damage is permanent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People who fixate on declining fertility are almost invariably also anti-abortion. They glom onto “declining fertility” as a talking point to justify their desire to control women & fertility. Because of course “declining fertility” is almost always cast as the aberrant decisionmaking of women denying their “natural” role. What also makes me laugh is when these self-same people ALSO complain about policies designed to support working mothers like childcare subsidies. These “declining fertility” scolds are fixated on controlling women.

People who fixate on declining fertility are almost invariably talking about white people.

Pretty typical of DCUM to lazily throw in a race based hypothesis. For a few decades now I've only heard complaints that the poor and uneducated have numerous kids while everyone else has 1.5. It should be obvious to anyone raising kids in the DC area why fertility rates are low - both parents expected to work long hours, daycare costs highest in nation with long waitlists and atrocious quality, declining schools due to extremist ideological battles over education, lack of services or activities for kids, poor healthcare for maternity and children in general, zero parental support from work or society in general, etc etc ad nauseam. It's definitely one thing in the US that does not care about race or religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People who fixate on declining fertility are almost invariably also anti-abortion. They glom onto “declining fertility” as a talking point to justify their desire to control women & fertility. Because of course “declining fertility” is almost always cast as the aberrant decisionmaking of women denying their “natural” role. What also makes me laugh is when these self-same people ALSO complain about policies designed to support working mothers like childcare subsidies. These “declining fertility” scolds are fixated on controlling women.

People who fixate on declining fertility are almost invariably talking about white people.

that too!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Hello? Do you have a position on overturning roe?

Relax lady. I had to step away. My position is that it was a weak ruling that should have been codified in legislation.

What does roe have to do with a declining birth rate if anything?

NP not PP but countries that have banned abortion saw decreasing birth rates afterwards. Happened in Poland and in Romania off the top of my head. Many links in the big Roe thread. States that have banned abortion following Dobbs also are showing increased immaterial and infant mortality rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Hello? Do you have a position on overturning roe?

Relax lady. I had to step away. My position is that it was a weak ruling that should have been codified in legislation.

What does roe have to do with a declining birth rate if anything?

NP not PP but countries that have banned abortion saw decreasing birth rates afterwards. Happened in Poland and in Romania off the top of my head. Many links in the big Roe thread. States that have banned abortion following Dobbs also are showing increased immaterial and infant mortality rates.

immaterial should be maternal, yikes autocorrect.

[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.

A little too extreme there. Adoption is sometimes necessary.

-Pro-choice adoptee who grew up knowing my extremely mentally ill birth parents and thankful I was adopted.

And this is the thing: most women who are forced to or choose to give birth aren't going to adopt out a healthy infant. Maybe to friends or family, but usually not to complete strangers unless the mother is self aware and knows she truly has significant issues.

Most of this forced "supply of health infants" the right wing wants to create by force will stay with a parent or family member until something awful happens to the parents or the child. Then they will be in foster care and adoptable post trauma, like lots of other American kids.