476
Fox News doc says not enough ’15 to 19′ year-olds are having kids: ‘The fertility is down’ (www.mediaite.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
116 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Fox News Senior Medical Analyst Marc Siegel made some eyebrow-raising comments lamenting that birth rates are down among teenagers aged 15 to 19.

On Thursday, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that the U.S. fertility rate fell to another record low. The agency reported that the number of births per 1,000 women of childbearing age declined from 53.8 in 2024 to 53.1 last year. The latest figure represents a continuation of a decades-long decline in fertility rates.

Siegel joined Friday’s edition of America’s Newsroom, where Dana Perino said that while the continuing trend is not surprising, “the numbers might feel a little shocking.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 113 points 7 months ago (9 children)

They're saying the quiet part out loud and why they're anti-abortion. The younger the better for a quick turnaround:

They need the poors to fight their wars and work on their factory floors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 48 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    I frequently just stand outside and look at the sky and think, yep, we weren't meant to work all day. We were meant to pick berries and mushrooms and take naps. I feel better about my station in life, knowing those oligarchs can never be satisfied, and all I have to do to feel right is take a walk outside.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Didn't we always hunt?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 7 months ago*

    Yeah, that's why we can run

    Edit: Distance running that is. Humans have better endurance than almost any land animal, so we can chase prey to exhaustion. It helps that we're crafty enough to carry water and snacks with us

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    Not an expert, but that would depend on the location, probably. Smaller game, certainly, but not everyone had large animals roaming around. Likewise, there were probably people who hunted and didn't gather that much because there simply wasn't that type of plant around.

    But the point made still stands: modern life is not something natural to our evolution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    Peoples would migrate across continents to follow the populations of animals if there were no large animals presently roaming around.

    Given that, I think it's safe to guess most early humans were more than willing to put in a little more effort to hunt over gather regardless of location.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    No, they want robots to work in the factories, because they don't complain and don't unionize, and don't take time off, and work for electrons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Yeah, but the good news is they are going to keep us desperate and dependent until that can be attained with certainty just in case that plan doesn't work out for them and they're stuck with us.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent