3 ms·

I'm not sure how many children you have. While certainly true that having healthcare is life-saving, it's not a requirement to have children. Pregnancy is not a

I'm not sure how many children you have. While certainly true that having healthcare is life-saving, it's not a requirement to have children. Pregnancy is not a disease, and results in a natural birth the vast majority of the time. Left on its own, this will naturally happen enough to replace the population. By all means, I am absolutely pro-hospitals and healthcare funding, but it's not an important consideration when considering the overall birthrate. Childcare is similarly not an issue. The sorts of people having a lot of kids are just not going to be using childcare a whole lot. One spouse will stay home. As for the wealthy comments. I go to a fairly traditional parish in a HCOL West Coast city, and I don't think family income has a very large impact on # of children. We have families making anywhere from $60k to $200k+ and if anything, more money results in less children. At the end of the day America is very rich and well-off. You don't actually need a whole lot of money to raise a child as long as you can resist the memetic pressure to be like everyone else. I mean, from what I've seen, income dictates whether or not a family decides to have seven kids versus six kids, but not 2-3. That's just a given.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
> While certainly true that having healthcare is life-saving, it's not a requirement to have children. Pregnancy is not a disease, and results in a natural birth the vast majority of the time. Left on its own, this will naturally happen enough to replace the population. Where healthcare access is limited, maternal mortality increases, impacting the total fertility rate (which accounts for infant mortality). I do expect people who want to have children to migrate to where they can obtain maternal and reproductive healthcare whenever possible, but if they don't, the evidence shows higher death rates of both mothers and infants. Citations below. https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1128335563/maternity-care-deserts-march-of-dimes-report https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1128335563/maternity-care-des... https://www.marchofdimes.org/research/maternity-care-deserts-report.aspx https://www.marchofdimes.org/research/maternity-care-deserts...
- vasco 2y ago
  I think their argument is valid because in the whole history of the world we were able to replace the population and had zero hospitals, right up to recently. So their argument stands, medical care is neither here nor there when discussing population replacement. Whoever wants kids just would do what they always did, have a few more because half will die before they hit 12.
- anon291 2y ago
  While I agree with you that maybe people will move, and I agree that lack of hospitals increases maternal mortality, the entire history of humanity suggests that we're incredibly good at reproducing without all of that. I don't really need a study. Your existence is proof enough.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Your argument against a rapidly falling fertility rate is that I exist? Yes, I exist, but the evidence is strong that year over year, more people are choosing not to have children and the systems that people who do have children rely on are not being supported adequately (as I've enumerated with my citations). Would you not agree with those observations? (South Korea's TFR is ~0.7, China is ~1, Japan is ~1.2, the US is not far behind at ~1.6, all 2024 figures presented)
    - anon291 2y ago
      No... your existence is proof that hospitals and medical care are not necessary to have a growing population. It's not proof against a rapidly falling fertility rate. How many times must I say I agree with you on some points before you'll actually engage?

toomuchtodo 2y ago

> While certainly true that having healthcare is life-saving, it's not a requirement to have children. Pregnancy is not a disease, and results in a natural birth the vast majority of the time. Left on its own, this will naturally happen enough to replace the population. Where healthcare access is limited, maternal mortality increases, impacting the total fertility rate (which accounts for infant mortality). I do expect people who want to have children to migrate to where they can obtain maternal and reproductive healthcare whenever possible, but if they don't, the evidence shows higher death rates of both mothers and infants. Citations below. https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1128335563/maternity-care-deserts-march-of-dimes-report https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1128335563/maternity-care-des... https://www.marchofdimes.org/research/maternity-care-deserts-report.aspx https://www.marchofdimes.org/research/maternity-care-deserts...

vasco 2y ago
I think their argument is valid because in the whole history of the world we were able to replace the population and had zero hospitals, right up to recently. So their argument stands, medical care is neither here nor there when discussing population replacement. Whoever wants kids just would do what they always did, have a few more because half will die before they hit 12.
anon291 2y ago
While I agree with you that maybe people will move, and I agree that lack of hospitals increases maternal mortality, the entire history of humanity suggests that we're incredibly good at reproducing without all of that. I don't really need a study. Your existence is proof enough.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Your argument against a rapidly falling fertility rate is that I exist? Yes, I exist, but the evidence is strong that year over year, more people are choosing not to have children and the systems that people who do have children rely on are not being supported adequately (as I've enumerated with my citations). Would you not agree with those observations? (South Korea's TFR is ~0.7, China is ~1, Japan is ~1.2, the US is not far behind at ~1.6, all 2024 figures presented)
  - anon291 2y ago
    No... your existence is proof that hospitals and medical care are not necessary to have a growing population. It's not proof against a rapidly falling fertility rate. How many times must I say I agree with you on some points before you'll actually engage?