What happens when a baby machine realizes it doesn't want to have babies at all?

[Underseer]

http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...achines-grasp-they-didnt-want-kids-after-all/

Adolescents in conservative churches often find that their congregations and their beliefs push them into marriage at a comparatively young age.

And soon after the vows are spoken, the baby-making is expected to begin.

Of course having one or two children won’t do. To truly please the Lord (and the minister, the parents, and the fellow churchgoers), the wedded couple must — per the book of Genesis — “be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”

Christianity pressures young people into getting married early and having lots of children before they've had a chance to experience life or even properly establish a life. Many of them get young and start having lots of kids not because they want to, but because they are pressured into it. After all, the man in the pulpit gets more money if he has more congregants, and in the Western industrialized world, believers are deconverting to atheism at an alarming rate.

The man in the pulpit needs lots and lots of babies. Who cares if people who get married younger are more likely to get divorced? Who cares if couples who start having children at a younger age are more likely to end up in poverty? As long as the man in the pulpit gets more money out of the deal, isn't that all that matters?

 

[Emily Lake]

So... the rate of large families is comparable between religious and non-religious people... but when religious people have large families it's a bad thing and they were pressured into it and didn't really want it... all on the basis of one anecdote?

Very skeptical of you Underseer. Very skeptical indeed.

 

[Rhea]

So... the rate of large families is comparable between religious and non-religious people...

Is it? Citation please? That would surprise me.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Quick search only.

No Religion and Others appear to have much lower fertility rates than the US national average. Various religions mainly higher. (in 2003)


PS Why "excluding blacks". What does that achieve?

 

[bigfield]

PS Why "excluding blacks". What does that achieve?

Looks like they have Black Protestants as its own category, and if you give us your source, we might be able to discover the reasoning behind that.

ETA:
This article seems to be related: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01510.x

I reckon (with some mind-reading) that they divided the religions into "ethnoreligious" categories for no other reason than they had the data available and the difference between Blacks/non-Black and Hispanic/non-Hispanic were significant. Doesn't really seem to be necessary to answer the question of religious composition unless you consider black and Hispanic churches to be separate religious categories.

 

[Angry Floof]

What happens when a baby machine realizes it doesn't want to have babies at all?

It depends on her environment. If she's steeped in a fundamentalist control environment, then she has few options, if any. Even when she goes through whatever internal religious system is supposed to deal with her depression, or suicide attempt, or abortion, or whatever, assuming she's made her realization known to her in-group in some way, they are not equipped to actually help her. Fundamentalists that subjugate women do not offer anything to actually help women in desperate situations. They mainly just offer shame.

If she's in a more liberal environment or one that allows for more diverse relationships with outsiders, one that doesn't control every aspect of a woman's life, she probably has options and connections to find help if needed.

 

[repoman]

PS Why "excluding blacks". What does that achieve?

Looks like they have Black Protestants as its own category, and if you give us your source, we might be able to discover the reasoning behind that.

ETA:
This article seems to be related: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01510.x

I reckon (with some mind-reading) that they divided the religions into "ethnoreligious" categories for no other reason than they had the data available and the difference between Blacks/non-Black and Hispanic/non-Hispanic were significant. Doesn't really seem to be necessary to answer the question of religious composition unless you consider black and Hispanic churches to be separate religious categories.

Churches are fairly segregated.

 

[whollygoats]

PS Why "excluding blacks". What does that achieve?

Looks like they have Black Protestants as its own category, and if you give us your source, we might be able to discover the reasoning behind that.

ETA:
This article seems to be related: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01510.x

I reckon (with some mind-reading) that they divided the religions into "ethnoreligious" categories for no other reason than they had the data available and the difference between Blacks/non-Black and Hispanic/non-Hispanic were significant. Doesn't really seem to be necessary to answer the question of religious composition unless you consider black and Hispanic churches to be separate religious categories.

Churches are fairly segregated.

Some explicitly.

 

[Worldtraveller]

View attachment 17406

Quick search only.

No Religion and Others appear to have much lower fertility rates than the US national average. Various religions mainly higher. (in 2003)


PS Why "excluding blacks". What does that achieve?

I'd like to see the data for mor(m)ons added to this list. Based on what I've seen since moving to UT, the average is about 4.868674.

 

[Underseer]

So... the rate of large families is comparable between religious and non-religious people... but when religious people have large families it's a bad thing and they were pressured into it and didn't really want it... all on the basis of one anecdote?

Very skeptical of you Underseer. Very skeptical indeed.

The rates are similar, not identical.

Encouraging people to get married early and have large families has serious consequences, as detailed in the article.

Not pressuring people to get married early and have large families does not have similar consequences.

 

[abaddon]

So... the rate of large families is comparable between religious and non-religious people... but when religious people have large families it's a bad thing and they were pressured into it and didn't really want it... all on the basis of one anecdote?

Very skeptical of you Underseer. Very skeptical indeed.

The rates are similar, not identical.

Encouraging people to get married early and have large families has serious consequences, as detailed in the article.

As "detailed" in an article that's more like some guy's blog entry than researched journalism. I've read five articles from The Friendly Atheist over the past month or so, and they were all "maybe" or "probably" there's a connection between something the guy read on the internet, and some idea that occurred to him while reading it. They cite an anonymous poster from Reddit in this one. It's an anecdote used to support a guess or personal impression. It's not "detailing" anything in any trustworthy way.

The other four articles from TFA that I bothered to look at were at the same low level quality. Citing The Friendly Atheist as a news source is no better than just linking to posts you happen to agree with in this or other discussion boards. Looks like a poster or two are able to outdo the source material, and so maybe some real information comes out of responding to such OP's. But TFA itself is bullshit.