Who knows how much of this will actually happen...but it will be interesting (and grim) to watch. Especially regarding the deaths predicted.

And it never ceases to amaze me how those who oppose contraception (and who make it sound as if couples who use it hurt marriage and society in general) turn a blind eye to the fact that even CONSERVATIVES do not have huge families, as a rule. Otherwise, the average American birth rate wouldn't be so low, right?

There's a reason you don't hear secular couples (or the average conservative, I'm guessing) singing the praises of "natural family planning."

Not to mention that child abuse and abandonment existed for thousands of years before the 20th century, so it's silly to talk as if not wanting children - or not wanting MORE children - is just a social construct or a mark of immaturity, like not wanting to eat vegetables.

"Conservatives Are In For A Rude Awakening If They Think Banning Abortion Will Increase Birth Rates: History suggests they’re about to crash at unprecedented levels"

https://psychedelicsaremedicine.medium.com/conservatives-are-in-for-a-rude-awakening-if-they-think-banning-abortion-will-increase-birth-rates-4b5e2853b0de
(7 minute read)

Excerpts (I left out the more terrifying predictions):

"...The US seems to be on the verge of the greatest birth rate crash we have ever seen. Here are some reasons why Republicans’ efforts at driving up the population will backfire catastrophically.

"More people than ever are getting sterilized, including fencesitters and people who may have once wanted kids.

"Earlier in 2022, a leaked memo suggested Roe vs Wade would be overturned by the end of summer. In a rapid response, internet searches for tubal ligation skyrocketed in the United States, suggesting many people planned to forego reproduction at all costs in the aftermath. After the official Supreme Court ruling, many people wasted no time in acting upon these plans. One Austin, Texas clinic saw requests go from about 1–2 to over 100 per week.

"At another clinic in San Antonio, Ob-Gyn Michelle Muldrow described 'the number of women…requesting sterilization (as) unlike anything she has seen' in her entire career.

"It isn’t just women seeking out sterilization, driven by fear of losing their most essential of human rights. Many urologists have reported that vasectomy inquiries are also up, in some places by around 900%.

"Some of these patients already have kids, but many do not. And while a large chunk of the latter would probably consider themselves to be childfree, such a massive increase in inquiries and surgery appointments is certainly not driven solely by these individuals. What these stratospheric numbers suggest is that many fencesitters and people who formerly may have wanted biological kids are opting out completely and choosing to be sterilized, reasoning that it’s too risky to have them at all when they don’t have the right to choose when and how to have them. Others are rightfully terrified of dying from fatal complications of a wanted pregnancy, or being criminalized for a miscarriage.

"More people are opting out of sex, dating, and marriage all together.

"Many conservatives who loudly preach of the virtues of abstinence are going to find themselves shocked and disappointed when a lot of people start to take this to heart and do it long term, to the extent where it tanks marriage and birth rates.

"...And a lot of pro-life men who long for marriage with the perfect subservient housewife are already feeling the pressure as women refuse to date them. In a new trend known as 'wokefishing', many of them have resorted to lying about their political views on dating apps in hopes of trapping a potential partner. But women are not as stupid as they think and it seems most of these men are in for a lonely ride as prospective dates counter their deception by more aggressively screening to see where they stand on abortion rights.

"...For an interesting lesson, we can look back at the Reagan administration days, when social programs for working moms were cut in an effort to force women back into the home and traditional gender roles, as well as increase birth rates. It had a devastating impact on many families, driving them into poverty that they still have not recovered from decades later. But it also backfired from its intended purpose and birthrates dropped in a trend that has not changed since then, as many women decided not to have kids at all when forced to strictly choose between motherhood or financial independence.

"The impact of socially conservative policy on birth rates is not just an American trend either: the same thing has happened in other countries. You can find some of the world’s lowest birth rates in Japan, where there is next to no daycare, maternal leave at most companies is abysmal, and many women fully lose their jobs for having babies..."

(snip)

The article didn't mention Poland, but the following article does.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/06/12/poland-abortion-rights-history/

"...In the 1950s and 1960s, it was not uncommon for women from European countries where abortion was restricted, including more “liberal” Sweden across the Baltic Sea, to travel to Poland to have abortions because they were more accessible and affordable there.

"Then, in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and so did the Polish Communist regime. As political and intellectual freedom expanded, reproductive rights reverted to the prewar “norm,” and abortion was effectively pushed underground — or abroad, for those who could afford it — due to the powerful influence of the Catholic Church. (More than 85 percent of Poles identify as Catholic, the highest percentage in any European country.).

"Since then, abortion access has continued to diminish, though the trend has also given rise to a vociferous abortion and women’s rights movement..."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/429152/birth-rate-in-poland/

(this shows an interesting DROP in the birth rate after 1989, though the rate more or less flattened from 1999 onward)

In article <b9d0e741-0a97-4915-b5bc-b6809130409en@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
....
>"Many conservatives who loudly preach of the virtues of abstinence are
>going to find themselves shocked and disappointed when a lot of people
>start to take this to heart and do it long term, to the extent where it
>tanks marriage and birth rates.

Great article. Thanks for posting. The above was my favorite paragraph.

Talk about "Be careful what you wish for..."

And remember this: There is really only one thing that is truly "safe sex".

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/ItsTough

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 10:17:59 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
> Lenona wrote:
> ...
> >"Many conservatives who loudly preach of the virtues of abstinence are
> >going to find themselves shocked and disappointed when a lot of people
> >start to take this to heart and do it long term, to the extent where it
> >tanks marriage and birth rates.
> Great article. Thanks for posting. The above was my favorite paragraph.
>
> Talk about "Be careful what you wish for..."

And that's also why I suspect that anti-abortionists aren't really that eager to punish women for having sex; they just want to punish ANY young fertile person, sexually active or not, who refuses to reproduce and actually succeeds at having no children - or only one.

Aside from what a low birth rate might do to the economy (and Paul Krugman, for one, has pointed out that we really need to start accepting low birth rates in the future and remodel economic approaches accordingly), many politicians are understandably afraid of a society in which EVERYONE is well-fed, well-educated, politically active - and in control of their own futures in general. Repressing access to family planning services is a great way to keep poor people poor and easier to control - and less likely to vote.

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 10:42:59 AM UTC-4, Lenona wrote:

> And that's also why I suspect that anti-abortionists aren't really that eager to punish women for having sex;

Not to mention that it's been pointed out that if anyone really managed to remove the stigma of giving birth out of wedlock, it was the anti-abortionists. (Unwed mothers who want to raise their kids are another matter, of course. If, as some argue, those "crisis pregnancy centers" are so wonderful for women and girls who end up giving birth, why don't we hear the folks on Fox News claiming, loudly and regularly, that it's the LIBERALS who don't care about babies once they're born?

> Aside from what a low birth rate might do to the economy (and Paul Krugman, for one, has pointed out that we really need to start accepting low birth rates in the future and remodel economic approaches accordingly), many politicians are understandably afraid of a society in which EVERYONE is well-fed, well-educated, politically active - and in control of their own futures in general. Repressing access to family planning services is a great way to keep poor people poor and easier to control - and less likely to vote.

Speaking of birth rates and populations...

Bill Maher is definitely an environmentalist type, so I'm surprised he doesn't talk about this subject a little more often. But I was glad to find it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB97iwcm_Qc
(8:29 minutes)

In article <d9e6ee38-bcf9-4e25-b3e9-1aa6801b10e1n@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Aside from what a low birth rate might do to the economy (and Paul
>Krugman, for one, has pointed out that we really need to start
>accepting low birth rates in the future and remodel economic approaches
>accordingly), many politicians are understandably afraid of a society
>in which EVERYONE is well-fed, well-educated, politically active - and
>in control of their own futures in general. Repressing access to family
>planning services is a great way to keep poor people poor and easier to
>control - and less likely to vote.
>
>Speaking of birth rates and populations...
>
>Bill Maher is definitely an environmentalist type, so I'm surprised he
>doesn't talk about this subject a little more often. But I was glad to
>find it.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB97iwcm_Qc (8:29 minutes)

Thanks for posting. That was a good video. I know the left likes to bash
on both of the guys I'm about to mention, but I really think of myself as a
liberal like them. They're the guys who really have their heads screwed on
right and are liberal about the things that matter, and don't get caught up
in all the woke-silliness that most mainstream leftists these days do.

The guys I'm talking about are Bill Maher and Sam Harris.

--
Many (most?) Trump voters voted for him because they thought if they
supported Trump enough, they'd get to *be* Trump.

Similarly, Trump believes that if *he* praises Putin enough, he'll get to *be* Putin.

> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB97iwcm_Qc (8:29 minutes)
> Thanks for posting. That was a good video. I know the left likes to bash
> on both of the guys I'm about to mention, but I really think of myself as a
> liberal like them. They're the guys who really have their heads screwed on
> right and are liberal about the things that matter, and don't get caught up
> in all the woke-silliness that most mainstream leftists these days do.
In that case, you might like this one too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMBzfUj5zsg

"Along for the Pride."

Some of the commentators say they're gay or trans - and that they AGREE with what Maher said.

And I'm not too surprised that they do. There still doesn't seem to be much room in society for, say, heterosexual men who like "feminine" pursuits - such as liking classic literature or ballroom dancing, the way there was up until WWII or so! Of course, gays weren't even supposed to exist back then, so in a way, that made sense. People couldn't accuse a man of being gay when chances were they had never heard of such a thing. E. Anthony Rotundo wrote a book in 1994 which discusses that, in part, called American Manhood: Transformations In Masculinity From The Revolution To The Modern Era.

In article <67c40e42-20db-420c-bb54-a1a9958358f3n@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB97iwcm_Qc (8:29 minutes)
>> Thanks for posting. That was a good video. I know the left likes to bash
>> on both of the guys I'm about to mention, but I really think of myself as a
>> liberal like them. They're the guys who really have their heads screwed on
>> right and are liberal about the things that matter, and don't get caught up
>> in all the woke-silliness that most mainstream leftists these days do.
>
>In that case, you might like this one too.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMBzfUj5zsg
>
>"Along for the Pride."

Yes, thank you again. Another bullseye by Mr. Maher.

I think at this point most people understand that "woke" mostly means
pro-trans. And that most sensible people see it for the farce that it is.

And, just in case anyone is confused: I'm not in any way "anti-trans".
I just don't think it is the hill that liberals should want to die on. And
die there they very well might - which which sink their whole agenda. And
that, quite literally, would be a tragedy.

--
1/20/17: A great day for all those people who are sick of being told
they don't know how to spell "you're" (or "there").

> "The impact of socially conservative policy on birth rates is not just an American trend either: the same thing has happened in other countries. You can find some of the world’s lowest birth rates in Japan, where there is next to no daycare, maternal leave at most companies is abysmal, and many women fully lose their jobs for having babies..."

Speaking of Japan...this is from 2013.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex

On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 9:35:13 AM UTC-4, Lenona wrote:
> > "The impact of socially conservative policy on birth rates is not just an American trend either: the same thing has happened in other countries. You can find some of the world’s lowest birth rates in Japan, where there is next to no daycare, maternal leave at most companies is abysmal, and many women fully lose their jobs for having babies..."
> Speaking of Japan...this is from 2013.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex

And, from 2020:

https://medium.com/@kiyoshimatsumoto/5-reasons-why-japanese-people-arent-having-sex-fb372937a3f0

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 10:42:59 AM UTC-4, Lenona wrote:
> Aside from what a low birth rate might do to the economy (and Paul Krugman, for one, has pointed out that we really need to start accepting low birth rates in the future and remodel economic approaches accordingly), many politicians are understandably afraid of a society in which EVERYONE is well-fed, well-educated, politically active - and in control of their own futures in general.

Specifically, Krugman said in May of 2021:
"The point is, whether we like it or not, we will live a long time with slow population growth. And we need to start thinking about economic policies that take this reality into account."

Here's the rest of it:

"Learning to live with low national fertility"

https://ksusentinel.com/2021/05/18/learning-to-live-with-low-national-fertility-05-17-2021-paul-krugman/

Excerpt:

"Okay, let me admit that there is a real problem: an aging population means fewer active workers per retiree, which poses tax problems. But this problem is often exaggerated. Remember all the panic over how Social Security could not survive the weight of post-war generation retirees? Well, a lot of them are already retired; by 2025, most of the growth in the number of beneficiaries per worker due to the retirement of this generation will have already taken place. But there is no crisis."

"Millennials and Gen-Z cannot afford to have children"
https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/comments/wyp44r/millennials_and_genz_cannot_afford_to_have/

60-plus comments so far.

One of the more popular comments:

KittiesB4Kids
"It's mind-blowing to me that in the fifties you could have a house and children on ONE income. I was born in 1987. I didn't go to college and therefore don't have student loan debt. I never wanted children and my husband is sterilized, thank God. We don't drink Starbucks or blow our money on alcohol or tattoos. We are trying to be frugal, but with inflation of everything and having car repairs, this is really tough on us. Education cost is through the roof. Housing costs, gas prices, grocery prices, utility bills - everything is horrible. The boomers are saying we need to live simpler: not buy $800 phones and so many streaming services. Okay. Except literally our whole system is technology dependent. I don't agree with it, I think it's risky and stupid, but it is what it is. We have to adapt to keep up. And I pay for Hulu and nothing else. And that doesn't change the fact that pay wages have NOT kept up with inflation. They had an easier path than us. Plain and simple.

"Basically you have to learn a sought after trade or get a CDL or you're screwed."

And the long response from bifuriouslypersist is even better:

" 1985 here, and even my single mother, poverty born and frugal, believes that bullshit line. She says 'what are you spending all of your money on???'

"I literally showed her my bank account. Gas, car payment (reasonable, and allllmost paid off... but also now about to be without a warranty), insurance, gas, rent, utilities, food, gas... school loan/medical bill payments, and also, gas. I wear my clothes until they're shreds, my phone is 6yrs old, I don't wear makeup, get my nails done, and cut my own hair. I only buy Starbucks (drip, not fucking lattes) and cheap prepared food when I've been so busy working/stuck in traffic that I'm literally starving and too exhausted to also go to the grocery store and make food that was just as expensive to buy and now I have to cook..."

(snip, but do read the rest, please!)

Me - I didn't actually post at Reddit; I never do:

I didn't even turn my heat on last winter, something that may well happen often, in the future, so my home gas bill was $200 for the whole YEAR. I don't have cable or my own computer, but there are 1,000s of free movies at the library (not to mention all the free music). I use their free laptops as well, but I want to cut back on that. Screen time is depressing anyway, especially as you get older. I buy maybe $20 worth of clothing per year, at thrift stores and yard sales. I cut my own hair too.

I have only two current monthly expenses I could possibly cut back on - my landline and my sweet tooth (the latter costs me $20 a month or less - if I want a takeout meal, I cut back on sweets). However, aside from the much-appreciated security of a landline, I like being able to keep my cell turned off 95% of the time, so it doesn't need much charging. For the most part, only telemarketers would call my cell anyway - and for that reason, it's not set up for voice mail, as my friends know, so of course we have to rely on my landline. I carry my cell in public only when truly necessary and I use it at home for long-distance calls, since my landline no longer does that.. (Not to mention that many - most? - employers aren't happy if they can't text you for emergencies, at least.)

More advantages of landlines:

https://www.lpcconnect.net/landline-benefits/

And I still can't afford even a dog. Or a car. (Luckily, I don't need/want either.) At least, not if I want my savings account to increase every year instead of decreasing.

Btw, a neighbor's pickup truck was stolen a couple of weeks ago - I just found out. To me, that suggests a certain level of desperation - i.e., not something that some rotten teenager would do for fun.