well that is because shareholders are wetting their pants realizing that with low birth rates they are losing both slaves and customers. Well, jokes on them, it is because of the shitty world they spearheaded (and that we followed)
It's almost like if people are able to mature enough to make an informed choice, they get a choice.
let kids be kids. when you force kids to be parents, you are stealing their childhood. all you have to do is explain "sex" in bits and pieces, when it's appropriate, and eventually they're ready for the anatomy explanations and maybe you can help soften the trauma of puberty.
That person and the author of the article obviously suck at reading/understanding crafts. Teen pregnancies did not have a high enough percentage (and it’s good that it went down).
Also, how do you miss the drop in the age range 20 - 24 and the rise in the age ranges above 30. It’s even indicated in the title to “40 is the new 20”.
This is indicative of a bad economy. I bet if you add a graph showing the rise in rent, you will see an inverse correlation.
EVERYBODY is mad!!!!
I think this is where a lot of modern civilization is falling apart at. If you want population replacement and growth, you actually have to make it advantageous to have children, and at appropriate age for your society and culture. The GOP thinks they can do it by destroying reproductive rights, civil rights, and marriage laws, if they harm women enough they'll HAVE to be baby makers! Dehumanized baby factories! And even conservative voters are fighting against it, because it's insane and it's against our current culture. It has to work for everyone. It would be more intelligent to create free childcare, better pregnancy and birth leave for both parents, and child tax credits. They could use WIC to absorb the cost of having a child and public education sooner with preschool. If people are hopeful their children will have high education access and a stable life they will be a lot more likely to have kids. Being horrified that your children will live in a fascist theocracy and intentionally kept uneducated and poverty stricken, they might actually voluntarily avoid sex to not have kids.
What if we don't want infinite growth? What about stability? Or (gasp) a population reduction so we don't destroy the planet. Have less babies. Feed the ones we have. Educate them.
Sure, easing into a deflating population over several hundred years is fine but tanking it and ending up with a society having to support a vastly older population ain't easy either. Better for governments to provide positive reasons to have children but there's zero chance of that.
We're going to run into a crisis within our life time whether we like it or not. Within 10-20 years, possibly longer if legislation somehow hampers it, pretty much the entire working class will be unemployable because machine labor will be cheaper and more readily available than any human. Yes, some people will still have jobs, but not the working class.
Long before we have a crisis of too many elderly for the working to care and provide for, we are going to have a crisis of not enough jobs paying a liveable wage for one, let alone a family, because corporations are going to be able to replace large swathes of their workforces with machines that cost less to maintain per unit than minimum wage, so why would they ever hire a person?
Both arguments are valid. Less children, better education and growth perspectives = better humanity. And still there are some sick fucks down voting. Which shows how fucked we are.
I mean yes, children should be an affordable option and please take my tax money to make it practically free. But also I think a lot more people don't want children than is generally assumed it expected. Just lots of societal pressure pushing vulnerable people to make a decision that's not necessarily in their best interest.
Let's not pretend the GOP are doing it for the good of humanity....
I think this is where a lot of modern civilization is falling apart at. If you want population replacement and growth, you actually have to make it advantageous to have children, and at appropriate age for your society and culture.
For most of history it wasn't advantageous to have children. People just didn't have many options, and we were used to babies dying all the time so if we wanted any help in our old age we had to have enough to survive into adulthood.
Where do you base this information from?
E.g. people who had a farm or crafts/trade business usually had children to help and later take over the business. Having children to help at old age is mentioned by yourself.
Sounds quite advantageous to me. Especially when labor is more physically demanding or you need enough people to maintain security like for traders etc.
Wrong thread. Im drunk
Been there. What are you drinking? I'm sipping on some Bushmills Black (sherry cask). Got a bit project out today.
Spent a year writing this beast:
What's your occupation?
What is that software?
PDF Xchange! It's fucking amazing. My work switched from Adobe because it does more and costs like $2 a licence vs $150 for Adobe
There was a theory that roughly 15 years after Roe v Wade crime started decreasing because people who weren't ready for or didn't want children could now have an abortion. Many of those kids that were previously born "unwanted" were in poor households and so the kids getting to about 15 years old in those conditions would start getting into trouble and start committing crimes.
For any fuckwit that says "make better decisions then! Use protection!" I'm the result of a broken condom, that shit absolutely happens. I was a "pleasant surprise." Honestly I wish they'd have just had the abortion.
I fail to see how this crime fighting measure involves more cops, guns and racism so I don't think you'll be able to convince the "tough on crime" "pro life" GOP supreme court on this.
Detailed in Freaknomics where Romania is used as an example.
My sister had her first child because her birth control failed due to another medication making it less effective.
No one warned her about that being a thing that can happen with that particular med. Not her doctor. Not the pharmacist. No one said a thing.. which is super fucked up. She was married at the time, but still. They were not ready for a kid(their words)
This was almost 20 years ago so I don't remember which med it was, and I'm hoping the medical community is better about this now.
I have been called a weirdo many times for always reading the information that comes with medications. I still do, even for stuff i have taken many times like Tylenol.
Of course doctors and pharmacists should inform their patients and have an eye on these things. But the full legally required known documentation is always with the medication. And humans are prone to error, especially in a field as complex as medicine/pharma.
Read the things before starting the medication. Always.
I read them too after what happened to my sister.
However, I think that certain types of side effects(life altering ones Tardive dyskinesia) and medications that are known to mess with hormonal birth control should have their own little text box right on the front where people can clearly see it.
Throwing a long ass pamphlet in there and calling it informed consent doesn't really cut it for me. There's a lot of room for improvement.
PSA: Antibiotics will make your birth control less effective.
Also no they do not warn most people about that.
Wait a moment, antibiotics will break condoms? /s
It's really honestly amazing that there are so many people in this world that don't understand that, A, married couples use birth control and have regular sex and, B, that birth control can fail.
Are they all incels are something?
"Your child its a miracle from god!" - anti abortionists
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
