politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The parts of the world where violent crime is lowest have the highest mean age of motherhood. Women in Australia and the UK, for example, wait until after 30 before having their first child.
The parts of the world where violent crime is the highest have the lowest mean age of motherhood.
Nobody should be encouraging pregnancy before age 30.
People should just stop trying to interfere with people's private life in general. Get pregnant or don't, how is that a concern to me?
As long as it's two consenting adults, which should be obvious, but sadly apparently isn't.
Because every society where the average person starts a family before age 22 is described as "developing" or "impoverished" and every society where the average person starts a family after the age of 28 is described as "industrialized".
I challenge you to find an exception.
You are swapping correlation and causation to some degree. A country does not become industrialized by people starting to have kids at a later age. Rather, people start getting kids when their circumstances allow it: in industrialized countries, you rely less on children to provide for you when old, as there hopefully are social systems in place or you can save up on your own. Downside is, without social systems you also have to provide for yourself at old age, meaning people need to build up more savings before they feel ready for the financial burden a child is for around 20 years.
In developing countries, children often get little support above bare necessities and start contributing to the household income at a much earlier age, even before hitting their teens.
There is a theory that supports this:
Declines in fertility have been observed after a country has become industrialized. Not only did fertility decline, but the children people were having were generally 'of higher quality'.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3982/QE1751
This comes from Wiki, and this particular statement currently has 3 citations if anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_growth_theory
I don't think your conclusion is correct and a correlation between the two numbers is by far not enough to assume a causality between the two of them. I would rather assume there are a lot of other factors being involved. Like e.g. the education system, especially the amount of years spent on education before starting to work, the general wealth of the society, the social securities provided the government, like e.g. health care, unemployment support etc.
Exactly. It's kinda hard to spend years on education, years building a nest egg, when you haven't spent all that many years alive.
The correlation is through socioeconomic conditions, correct. Older parents have worked longer, saved more, and can provide greater opportunities to their children, which in turn creates a more prosperous society that values education, social security, etc.
That last take comes off as weird, ngl. Just let people do what they want.
I think you're reading more into my statement than what I actually said.
This thread is about a GOP official encouraging child pregnancy:
I don't think we should just let that GOP official do what he wants.
I think your criticism is about reproductive rights: that we should leave individuals to make their own decisions. I agree.
However, when the question comes up as to the best time to start a family, there is an answer: "after 30".