As the current administration and pro-natalist groups continue to panic about women delaying motherhood, we must reject the “alarming fertility statistics.” If women choose to have children, that decision should be guided by their own goals, circumstances, and desires, not by pressures to solve a manufactured problem.

At the end of the day, supporting families means creating conditions in which people can make reproductive decisions freely. The solution to declining birth rates is not limiting women’s choices, but ensuring they have the resources and support needed to build the lives and families they want.

all 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 16 points 4 months ago (4 children)

At this point 90% of the time someone starts on about demographics and birthrates, it’s just fascist dog whistling. I can’t be convinced declining birth rates are a real problem, our labor has long since stopped being the limiting factor on productivity. The evidence is in how many pointless jobs there are.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    It’s a tough issue to talk about- I see it as a real problem. However it’s been so captured by regressive that most people jump right to arguing that rather than actually thinking.

    The birth rate is getting low enough to be a serious problem and some of the reasons are side effects of good changes. However the solution is NOT a reversion to more oppression for women. The solution is NOT walking back education or opportunities for women. The solution is never to reject those good changes.

    So what is the answer? Having children is challenging, expensive, and our society does very little to support it. It’s society that needs more children, not individuals what is society offering for that? How is it helping? How is it making children easier, less expensive, more rewarding?

    Some countries have been trying without much luck. That tells us we’ll have to put more effort into it, more time. This is an urgent problem both because of the long lifetime of people and that we don’t have much positive leverage

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 11 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] [S] 11 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    The Trump administration wants to eliminate the nation’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention program—again. Last year, the administration called the program “radical indoctrination.”

    Somehow it gets worse: the same week Trump proposed a budget sans Teen Pregnancy Prevention, conservatives lost their collective minds over the fact that the teen birth rate is going down. Seriously.

    On Friday, Fox News analyst Dr. Marc Siegel called it a “problem” that teens are having less babies:

    “The problem is teens and young adults from ages 15 to 19, the fertility rate is down 7 percent, and it’s down 70 percent over the last two decades, meaning we’re telling people that are young not to have babies, to wait until they’re in a more stable life situation, until they’re more financially secure. Maybe they haven’t found the right partner.”

    Just a reminder that most teens are impregnated by adult men.

    Yep, several on the right have been throwing absolute fits that the falling birth rate is partially tied to teens preventing pregnancies at higher rates.

    Disgusting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    Animals under high stress do not reproduce. This has been well established. Humans are animals. The global economy has produced too much stress and the rewards are going to a handful of people, while we suffer to make "line must always go up" a reality for them, we can't afford food. But we did briefly have the world's first trillionaire, so that's pretty nifty.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    It's not really about the stress so much as it is about women having control over their own life choices.

    Which is what the article says.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I agree, women not having bodily autonomy, speaking as a non female, sounds like it would be stressful

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Women are delaying having children and prioritizing other things like career advances, education, and travel which is affecting the birth rate.

    Which is what the article says.

    Yes the stress has an impact as well. But there’s other reasons like women having more choice over when they have children.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Make it easy to be in a community, fed and comfortably housed and you'll start seeing lots of kids again. Tho, the attention black holes in our pockets are also a part of the problem imo.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    We don’t need to solve a problem that isn’t a problem, specifically the falling birth rate.

    Let women choose when they have children.

    Plus give us all the good community and safety social nets. But not because it’ll make women have more babies, because it’s the right thing to do regardless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    ???? I didn't say women women should be forced. I think they want to have children but current socioeconomic policies don't allow for it. I say it as a lucky person that's gonna be an uncle soon. Because my sister has all of the 3 things I mentioned.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] -2 points 4 months ago

    Did you read the article?

    I’m not saying you think women should be forced.

    The article details that women delaying children and having more choice over WHEN they have children is affecting the birth rate more than material conditions.

    I’m just having a conversation with you about the article.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago

    Its all the supplements in food and water,who are responsible .

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/childfree@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    A lower birth rate means less workers. However the capital(factories, buildings etc) is still about the same. Therefore in a free market, workers should be paid more. In Western Europe there were two periods, when the wealth gap closed. One was after WW2, when millions died and the earlier one was after the black death.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    this is why population collapses are surprisngly a good thing for workers after they have subsided because 1. it forces workers to be paid more even a little more since there is less people out there to work and 2. it gives a few workers the insight that Marx was rigjht, you shouldnt let the very rich and the politically connected bbe the ONLY ones who contrrol how much children you have . You should take a hold of your reproductive rights and produce less workers for them if the bourgeoisie make your life and youur loved ones' lives enshittified.

    A society owned and ran by the people who do the most work (a dictatorship of the proletariat) is the ultimate andd only goal right now. By ANY means necessary .... 👀

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    If you want more children, foster an environment favorable to children. Austere policies and dystopian living is not fostering such an environment. Also, there is no “new land” on this third rock from the Sun (yes, I’m aware of volcanism but the state boundaries are more or less set unless wars happen). Getting and keeping Mars or any planetoid is extremely remote.

  • source