The horrors! How will they survive
Uh huh.
This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. Why would anyone want to bring a kid into this clown show hell? Not to mention who can afford it.
How do you explain why people had children throughout most of human history when conditions were far worse than they are now? Or why people in the poorest parts of the world continue to have children now? I believe that from your subjective point of view, what you posted feels true, but I don’t know how you reconcile it with the objective facts that people in poor countries have more children than people in rich countries, and that even within the United States poor people have more children than rich people.
I’m gonna guess there was a decent amount of rape involved, too
They were horny and and didn’t have good contraception?
There were less laws and they had kids as if it was an investment and the kids would work for them?
They were manipulated by religion or their country to produce more soldiers for the nation or God?
More kids died young too, so they had to have spares.
“Mama why do I exist?”
“You were born in case your older brother died.”
Yup, also in other nations people have kids as literal insurance to take care of them when they get old.
In the Philippines you soon might be jailed if you don’t take care of your parents as they age. That’s certainly not the case in the US.
My fiancé is from the Philippines and that belief system is cyclical, with tired kids having kids so they can be taken care of after burning out taking care of their parents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws
In most countries where those laws exist though, as long as they are on social programs the responsibility is covered
Oh wow - I never knew that! I’m glad to hear the social programs exist, but still… yikes!
Historically, women didn’t have much choice in the matter.
- not allowed to work, own property, etc etc, so you have to marry a man, and presumably he’s going to fuck you. Remember that marital rape wasn’t considered a crime in any U.S. state until the 70’s, and wasn’t illegal everywhere until the 90s. Most cultures in history have not considered marital rape a crime, and most cultures have necessitated women be supported in heterosexual marriages.
- access to birth control. It was a felony for unmarried people to possess condoms or birth control medication until 1972 in the US. Condoms also weren’t floating around in the Middle Ages, iirc they start to exist in the early modern period. Effective birth control is really a 20th century thing.
Very early cultures did practice infanticide in times of trouble, but most religions began to frown on that very heavily.
The regime is probably going to decriminalize and simply get rid of the concept of marital rape at some point, if we’re being honest.
Trump’s lawyer told Ivanka that marital rape wasn’t a crime when they were going through their divorce in the 90’s. It was by that point, but she didn’t know.
It’s a pretty fucked up incident - he was in pain from a hair transplant, ripped out her hair (giving her bald spots) and raped her. She recanted the rape claim, 100% because Trump’s lawyers threatened her into silence and lied to her.
So yeah, in light of Trump also suggesting that it was unfair to include domestic violence in crime statistics, I doubt this administration really considers marital rape a crime. I would not be surprised if at the state level there was an increased reluctance to prosecute marital rape and domestic violence in hell hole red states.
I’m from MS, and my anecdotal experience is not representative of everyone. That being said, the number of people I knew that who experienced sexual abuse in their marriages was shockingly high compared to other placed I have lived.
But then how do you explain why the within-county trends match both the trends across countries and the historical trends?
Not complicated or difficult to understand.
Poor have more children, because poor are generally more uneducated, especially in 3rd world countries. It is the more informed and educated that are having less children. People that are more informed and educated, generally think long term, and don’t just succumb to immediate gratification. Immediate gratification for someone who is poor, the cheapest thing is sex, and unprotected at that.
Not to mention less educated people are more easily indoctrinated into devout religious beliefs. And the abrahamic religions and it’s offshoots all strongly encourage having children.
It’s really not that complicated.
Ok, but you’re not starting with the belief that Americans are having fewer children because they can’t afford to, the way that the poster I’m replying to is.
Educated people have fewer children. It’s true in every developed nation.
Yes, but that’s not what the guy I’m replying to is saying.
But it is.
Why would anyone want to bring a kid into this clown show hell? Not to mention who can afford it.
Smarter, more educated people tend to, by and large, make smarter decisions. I.e. not bringing a kid into the world if you know you can’t afford to. Or you recognize that you kid is probably going to have a way harder go of things than you did.
Lack of education and an abundance of farmland.
Why are they trying to make this seem like it’s a fertility issue and not a choice to not have children in the current state of the world…
People are struggling, inflation is out of control, the world is burning, women are losing their rights, and you maybe can take a month off work if you’re lucky… compared to most of the rest of the world at 6 months or more…
But yeah People can’t seem to get pregnant
I’m a guy that’s not interested in having children, but I wouldn’t have children even if I wanted them. Why would I when I know becoming homeless in this country is very real possibility? Children need stability.
I want children but have no security. Not in my job, income, housing. Hard work doesn’t pay for shit these days.
What’s the number on childless men look like?
How about the fact that people are realising that they can live a far better life if they’re child-free?
“Childless” is a shitty term that assumes that breeding is the default
It’s nice to see more people realise that they don’t have to simply follow the life-script™
Good. It’s becoming downright unsafe to be pregnant in America.
Good for them 🙏
Welcoming Ameripoors to the Europoors. It’s a downslope for both regardless though.
Americans for spending so much on wars and veteran benefits that are abused at historic levels as social media taught people how to get to or near 100% disability ratings and lawyers specialized in getting high disability ratings for their clients before even getting to maintaining the huge amount of aging naval and air force equipment
Europeans for likely needing to dedicate higher portions of their GDPs to defense spending in anticipation of less US funding, less commitment of personnel, and less equipment for anti-Russia defense. That too possibly leading to the abusable military enlistment packages and contract shenanigans for onshoring defense R&D
People aren’t getting 3 bedrooms in their 20s and upgrading to 4+ bedrooms in their 30s for 3+ children. Their parents had them older. And then they’re having kids, if even, older than their parents. Grandparents deep into their 60s into their 70s aren’t babysitter energy like late 40 into their early 50s grandparents. I don’t care how walkable a community is, the whole village raising a child seems less common across the world compared to the past so that’s not a well understood how to do solution and the walkable community countries often cited don’t have replacement rate birth rates
Americans for spending so much on wars and veteran benefits that are abused at historic levels as social media taught people how to get to or near 100% disability ratings and lawyers specialized in getting high disability ratings for their clients
This is the first I’m hearing of that. Though I admit I don’t use sm. I was given 100% for PTSD after going through an extremely stressful evaluation where the examiner deliberately triggered me several times. I say deliberate, but it was very subtle, if someone was faking it they wouldn’t have noticed or even reacted.
On the flip side, I have a friend who is missing 10% of his brain to an IED, can’t hear for shit, and can’t walk very far because the part of his brain that is missing controls autonomous breathing - he has to think about it or he doesn’t breathe. He was only given 30% and he honestly doesn’t have the resources or mental fortitude to keep trying to get the VA to take care of him.
It’s not a knock on everyone. It’s just what I’ve noticed in my life with the military, in civilian DoD and contracting, those I know working at the VA. The ones with serious medical issues are very noticeable but there’s a huge amount of people that did 4 years, saw no combat, not even seen the desert in Qatar or Bahrain, but got themselves to like 70-100% disability rating and will see major benefits for life. Various states give discounts on property taxes and whatever else they squeeze through throughout election seasons
It’s a very unpopular opinion of mine but I hold it. Military benefits are sacrosanct along with the defense budget so they can never be lowered unless the US accepts a role as a regional power rather than a global power and/or it’s GDP starts to flatline or declines adjusted for inflation making debt payments a larger percentage of GDP. Someone who’s most trialing duty station being Stuttgart can get 100% disability and it’s smart on them to do so but it’s definitely an anchor on the country’s ability to finance a potential war against Russia, China, or I’d say even Iran would be incredibly problematic.
US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are not close to Korea or Vietnam but the financial cost is far greater. It is morally good to take care of veterans but it’s not something that will get major scrutiny because of political optics. Screw insurance companies but would private insurance companies determine disability ratings like the VA? Radar technician in Sacramento, air force tech in Colorado - you can get a high disability rating and go on to work full time without issue. It’s a lax system attractive for abuse. There’s probably an in between between the VA and private insurers that would be more sustainable and accurate. Maybe it should be a lot closer to SSDI
I served during a war, but I’m not a combat veteran.
I think putting the focus on being a combat veteran to “earn” disability benefits is unfortunate, because there are things that can disable you even if you aren’t at war. I know a lot of people who have broken their backs during routine maintenance, some who lost hearing to insufficient hearing protection on a flight line, a few who lost limbs to snapping arresting wires, some who have had debilitating reproductive cancer at very young ages because of the chemicals we were exposed to.
But I know far more veterans who are like me and weren’t kept safe from their fellow soldiers/airmen/shipmates. I don’t know if it’s different now, but it was really common to just admin separate people who suffered what I did and not provide medical care. My command went so far as to tell me I was not a veteran and not to seek medical care or benefits when they gave me my discharge paperwork. They said that with straight faces, looking at me with my broken face and skull, bruised and sliced body, and barely able to stay awake because my brain was damaged.
Over 10% of female veterans have experienced what I did, 40% have experienced harassment, and about 5% of men also have the same kind of PTSD that comes from sexual trauma. Regardless of combat deployment status. That really points to an institutional problem with the military. So please, point at the commands when you want to take money away, instead of the people who are using the socialized Healthcare we signed contracts for in event of disability during service
MAGA is gonna lash out again.
Don’t highlight this stuff. It’ll give the pro-Gilead scum impetus to start their operations sooner.
