Not The Onion

21196 readers

2183 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

471

Fox News doc says not enough ’15 to 19′ year-olds are having kids: ‘The fertility is down’ (www.mediaite.com)

submitted 1 day ago by resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

120 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/45445434

Fox News Senior Medical Analyst Marc Siegel made some eyebrow-raising comments lamenting that birth rates are down among teenagers aged 15 to 19.

On Thursday, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that the U.S. fertility rate fell to another record low. The agency reported that the number of births per 1,000 women of childbearing age declined from 53.8 in 2024 to 53.1 last year. The latest figure represents a continuation of a decades-long decline in fertility rates.

Siegel joined Friday’s edition of America’s Newsroom, where Dana Perino said that while the continuing trend is not surprising, “the numbers might feel a little shocking.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Steve@communick.news 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (16 children)

The dude was conflating a number of things.
Teen birth rate is down the most, at 7% in 2025. 70% since 2005. Overall births are down slightly last year.
Overall we have a sub replacement birth rate of 1.53 per woman.

The last one is a societal problem. But just saying we need women to have more kids isn't a solution. You need to find out why people don't want to have as many kids. Which I would bet is almost entirely economic. Kids are a large long term expense. And if you're living paycheck to paycheck, with an uncertain financial future, a kid is a scary prospect.

[–] Feyd@programming.dev 19 points 1 day ago (11 children)

The problem is the sub replacement birth rate of 1.53 per woman.

This is not actually a problem, except we want to keep the completely unsustainable economic system unchanged.

[–] Steve@communick.news -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Economy or not, having one person who needs to take care of two elderly parents, themselves, and 0.75 kids isn't great. That's not the goal

[–] Feyd@programming.dev 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Society doesn't have to work that way.

[–] Steve@communick.news 4 points 1 day ago

Of course not. That's the point. We don't want it to work that way

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (12 replies)