Letters: The lurking agenda in the argument for having more babies

Chicago Tribune

14-05-2025

The editorial about women having fewer children is shameful ('Should we worry about American women having fewer kids?' May 4). There is a pathetic patronizing attempt to walk the misogynistic message back with the reassurance that of course the Tribune Editorial Board supports any choice a person makes about childbirth. Overall, however, this editorial is a more sophisticated-sounding message than usual that woman are baby-making machines who just don't know what they should be doing to maintain the vitality of this country and perhaps we can remind them.
Women are indeed making different choices than 50 years ago. We are more educated, on the whole, with more opportunities for fulfilling our aspirations. The editorial board notes that many women now earn college degrees and prioritize career. The implication is that they really be having children instead, such as the editorial's examples of women in Afghanistan and Yemen. We all are aware of the tragic status of women in those countries.
But perhaps that is embedded in the editorial's message. Women have forgotten their role and place in society? Wouldn't this all be better if women did not care so much about other aspects of their lives and just did their duty as defined by the patriarchy?
The board also leaves out other considerations that people have for delaying or not having children: the environmental crisis, for one example.
Yes, work for better child care and parental leave, which is essential for those who choose to have children, but respect the growing numbers of men and women who are making other choices. And search for what agenda lurks underneath what appears to be a reasonable argument.
In the meantime, if the board insists on talking about women's bodies, please consider impassioned editorials about, for example, abortion and contraception access, equitable research on women's health concerns, and the miserable mortality rate in childbirth, particularly among women of color.In reference to the editorial 'Should we worry about American women having fewer kids?': One viable solution is to relax our collective sphincter muscle about . Newly arriving immigrants tend to be younger, healthier and fertile. This would would add to our population.
As a 76-year-old Black American woman, I know that it has happened before in our country. Successive waves of immigrants from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Ireland weren't readily accepted due to their traditions, foreign tongues, different foods and, of course, their poverty. But with the passage of time, they became Americans.
And then, as now, we the people of the United States of America became changed, as reflected in the foods we eat, our entertainment and our fashion.
Look at them now — so many 'ethnic' success stories. Some opponents of present immigration benefited from past immigration, such as Christopher Rufo and Steven MillerThere are two main reasons the 'brilliant' (as the Tribune Editorial Board calls him) Elon Musk wants more babies. First, he wants more white babies, because he fears, like other white supremacists, that nonwhites will take over by outbreeding. Musk and his ilk see this the pathway to civilizational wrack and ruin. There are more than a few people in the MAGA hierarchy who are totally on board with this assessment.
The second reason is to defend corporate capitalism, which survives only by ever-expanding markets for ever-expanding profits. It won't be sufficient to simply hollow out government resources and plunder public treasuries, although that will continue to occur. Capitalism needs a new baby boom (and the editorial mentions 'baby boom' approvingly) in order to keep demand spiking upward. Resources might be getting scarcer as the world's population soars past sustainability tipping points, but the eyes of capitalists will never be cast anywhere else but on their own balance sheets.
We do need babies and families, as the editorial board says, to replace the current population, but a stable, sustainable Earth requires limits to growth and population. Make family life more affordable by fully funding perinatal care programs, housing assistance and day care programs. Raise wages and expand parental leave benefits.
Our nation needs more of a commitment to, and investment in, people in general, not merely to have more kids but to have the means to achieve a more decent life. Yet we are called upon only to make more sacrifices of our social framework in order to provide billionaires like Musk with further tax cuts. How is that pro-family?
Quality, not quantity, of life is what matters. Let's do that.My first thought after reading the editorial was: Is someone trying out material for 'Saturday Night Live' or possibly a remake of 'The Boys From Brazil'? I applaud the Tribune Editorial Board for refraining from saying women should remain barefoot and pregnant. Remember, in general, men regulated women to second-class citizen status in this country.
If the board wants women to have more babies, then give us back the right to control our own bodies, the right to say 'no' and in the workplace and at home. Perhaps the board should be wondering why we would want to bring more children into today's world.
Who would knowingly want to bring new life into an authoritarian society?While I admire Timothy Shriver's larger point in his op-ed ('Pritzker, if you want to solve problems, lose the contempt,' May 8) that contempt should not be a part of our political discourse, I cannot let Shriver's blatant hypocrisy go without its own share of my own contempt. That horse is out of the barn, released by Republicans, and enabled by media pretending that old norms apply when they do not and have not since 2015, when Donald Trump began his first presidential campaign by impugning all Mexican immigrants as drug dealers and rapists. Pretty contemptible, yes?
When any Democratic politician, including Gov. JB Pritzker, dares to stand up to extreme Republican rhetoric with any language beyond polite pablum and pious platitudes, pundits tell Democrats to lower the volume, cut the contempt and be nice. Democrats might alienate some putative centrist voter, and it just lowers the dignity of our political discourse. Heaven forbid Democrats do such damage to our precious polite political discourse!
Meanwhile, Republicans such as our current president spew contempt like volcanoes of hatred, prejudice and madness. And that's regrettable, but Democrats should be nice? While the Republican lava flow of contempt incinerates our constitutional separations of powers, our economy and (especially for women) our very bodily liberty, we must be nice.While Timothy Shriver's thoughts are pleasant enough for a normal person, one just needs to recognize who Gov. JB Pritzker is addressing. President Donald Trump is the most offensive bully and contempt-monger in the history of the U.S. presidency. Pritzker must fight fire with fire.