This guest post is from Parker Brown, Regent Law 3L:
Questions regarding population trends,
birth rates, and intergenerational care affect estate planning, social policy,
and family law in consequential ways. Yet the contemporary movement known as
"natalism" approaches these questions from a perspective that merits
careful scrutiny.
Natalism. Noun: “an attitude or policy favoring or encouraging
population growth.” This ideology is distinct from those of
groups like the pro-life movement (which seeks an end or heavy restriction to
the practice of abortion) or the consistent life ethic (which opposes
war, euthanasia, the death penalty, and abortion from an anti-death
perspective).
While natalism shares concerns about
demographic trends with pro-life advocates, it approaches these questions
primarily through the lens of birth rates and population growth. The interest
with birthrates arises from a number of considerations, be they spiritual,
social, political, or economic. The natalist lens sees the existence of
children as an anodyne for familial, community, and national
tensions/strife/dissolution. Right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage
Foundation view lower rates of child having as a spiritual malaise impugning
trouble for “the state of our souls.” And a variety
of voices, from investment banks to advocates at the National Natal conference, view lowered
levels of child-bearing as an existential crisis. Yet this position assumes
inherent benefits (beyond a rational preference calculus) that having a child
is a first order benefit for all persons as a first order consideration.
Moreover, regardless of the severity and scope of natalists’ identified harms,
their solutions present a metaphorical cure perhaps far worse than the disease.
Beginning with the first issue, we should
recognize that universal parenthood as a policy goal presents significant
challenges. Many potential parents would be poorly suited to the task, through
either a lack of material resources, an absence of training, or a poor
temperament mismatch. While the first two concerns could be alleviated with
government intervention and aid, it does not follow that parenthood for all
should be pushed before such considerations are weighed. The latter concern,
however, is the simple truth that many people are ill-suited to be parents:
through selfishness, propensity to violence, routine narcotic abuse, habitual
indigence, and more. Given that more than 340,000 children remained in the US
foster care system in 2023 and the rates of adoption from
foster care have declined by 19 percent since 2019, it merits further consideration
of why more children should be born before finding suitable and loving homes
for all children already here. These realities suggest that our focus should
include not only encouraging new births but also strengthening support systems
for existing families and children that provide stable, loving homes (such as
blended, multigenerational, multifamily, and adoptive arrangements).
Additionally, though having children is tied to numerous prosocial benefits, there are numerous costs
(pecuniary and personal) in having a child. Two studies in 2004 and 2012,
respectively, found that recent parents report lowered levels of life
satisfaction, marital satisfaction, and day-to-day levels of happiness (lasting
for several years, including and up to the point at which children move out).
These arise from factors such as less sleep, stress over a child’s wellness,
and quarrels over the direction of child rearing. SoFi also estimates the cost of raising a child,
in 2024, at $23,000 per year (totaling $414,000 over 18 years). These costs
demonstrate that the decision to have a child should not be entered into
lightly.
Natalists counter that parenthood is a duty, even if you do not want or enjoy
it. Their reasons arise from the aforementioned economic concerns (“we need a
supply of workers; we need more young people to pay into entitlement programs
to ensure longevity”), societal dogma (“without children, humanity will die
out!”), and religious postulations (“God commands us to have kids”). I will
discuss these points next.
Economic
At the first national Natal Conference in
2024, speaker Kevin Dolan succinctly remarked on the natalist economic
perspective: “The entire global financial system, the value of your
money. . .depends on growth.” This is factually true—our present
economic system (oriented toward macro measurement of GDP [gross domestic
product]) is principally concerned with growth in the short and long term. As a
descriptive statement, however, we must be careful not to conflate it with a
normative one: mistaking what is from what ought to be. The mere existence of a system
does not presuppose its preeminence or positive benefits. Indeed, the
distinction of concepts like the “GDP” move focuses away from other measures of
economic success and prosperity for individual citizens, such as real wages,
unemployment, domestic investment, housing affordability, et cetera. Each
focuses on prioritizing an economy that exists for the people, and not a people
existing for the economy. (This also ignores models showing that a reduction of
birth rates, in some contexts, actually raises GDP growth). We will not
dwell at length on these counterfactuals, though; they could not be adequately
discussed in a few hundred words.
Societal
This concern relates to a topic called the
“fertility rate,” a metric that measures
the number of children each woman capable of having children is expected to
have. Natalists speak about this subject extensively. This framing continues the above mindset of perpetual
growth as inherently good. The question, here, revolves around something called
the “replacement rate,” equal to a fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman of
childbearing age.1 If the fertility rate is exactly 2.1, then the
population size will be unchanged over two generations (~40 years). If the
fertility rate is higher, e.g. 2.6, then the population will grow. Assuming an
initial population size of 100 million, a consistent fertility rate of 2.6 will
result in a population of ~156 million in two generations (~40 years).2
By contrast, a fertility rate below the replacement rate, e.g., 1.6, will cause
the population to shrink. Assuming an initial population size of 100 million, a
consistent fertility rate of 1.6 will result in a population of ~56 million in
two generations (~40 years).
In 2025, the fertility rate in the U.S. is 1.79. This amount is below the
replacement rate (and below the apogee of the U.S. fertility rate of 3.65 in 1960). But this paints an
incomplete picture: the U.S. fertility rate has risen from an all-time low of 1.62 in 2023 (an increase of 17 basis
points and 10.49 percent). Furthermore, despite the U.S. fertility rate being
below 2.1 since 2008, the U.S. population is not
decreasing but increasing. The total U.S. population was 308.745 million in 2010; in 2020, the U.S. population was 331.449
million (a 7.4 percent increase). The U.S. population continues to rise as of
2025, too, currently estimated at 342.660 million. Given that the
American population is not decreasing,
why the concern from natalists?
The reason for their concerns and the
reason for the population increase each point to a common thread, immigration,3
and the relationship between fertility concerns and immigration policy deserves
careful scrutiny. Since they are interested in boosting the birth rates of
their own citizens while the overall fertility rate around the world remains quite high, it is reasonable to view
natalism as a subset of nativism. Given that the ostensibly
first-order problem of overall population decline is not occurring (on the
national or global level), the natalists’ viewpoint is thus ultimately
concerned with fewer numbers of children from particular persons. Intended or unintended, the natalist movement
at present has, unfortunately, attracted speakers whose views on race and
immigration raise serious concerns.
The 2025 national Natal Conference found
itself in precisely this quagmire. Though officially positioning itself as
apolitical and ideologically unaligned (and the abstract idea of promoting
child rearing could find support across the political spectrum), it has
tethered itself to thought leaders on the radical right. Assembled at its last
gathering was a consortium of eugenics supporters, white nationalists, and
anti-immigration hardliners. Alas, they appeared not in the audience but as the
keynote
speakers. These included alt-right YouTuber Carl Benjamin (who
publishes content online under the moniker “Sargon of Akkad”), Jonathan Anomaly
(an academic and senior staffer at Heliospect Genomics, a startup that
screens human embryos for high IQ points and other “superior” characteristics),
Jordan Lasker (who, under the moniker “Cremieux,” publishes treatises on
debunked pseudoscientific “race science”), and Jack Posobiec (an inveterate promoter
of baseless conspiracies such as the Springfield, Ohio, pet-eating hoax,
PizzaGate, and the white genocide conspiracy, and who has repeatedly posted
antisemitic symbols and comments on social media). The connection between
natalist advocacy and racialized population concerns was made plain by keynote
speaker Posobiec, who stated at the conference, “Western civilization isn’t just worth preserving. It’s
worth fighting for. . . . This is a war, and natalism is our sword and shield,
and we will not abandon the front line.” His framing of
reproduction as civilizational warfare against demographic change echoes
longstanding far-right rhetoric about ethnic preservation. These troubling
associations significantly detract from and undermine the movement’s stated
goal of a bipartisan consensus to promote families.
In addition to speakers from Heliospect,
the through line of eugenics was further bolstered by adverts for the company Orchid (another prenatal screening
company that analyzes embryos for their risk of having any of thousands of
genetically linked diseases) and Bootstrap Bio (that goes beyond the
mere filtering of embryos to the genetic modification
of embryos via CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology (selecting, again, for the
most “superior” of genetic traits). Each calls to mind the dystopian film Gattaca, which imagined a world
bifurcated between the genetically engineered first class and the genetically
“inferior” invalid class. Altogether, this shows a concerning revival of
eugenics discourse (the belief that society ought to have more of the
genetically “fit” and less of the “unfit.”)
To be clear, not every attendee or
supporter of natalist policies endorses these extreme positions. However, when
a movement’s marquee national event features multiple speakers with documented
histories of promoting racial pseudoscience and white nationalist talking
points (and when this has occurred at successive conferences), a reasonable
observer must question whether these associations are incidental or integral to
the movement’s animating concerns. Given that prominent natalists advocate for
raising rates of children not just with tax credits but also with political
maneuvers (such as restricting contraception access,
banning no-fault divorce, and giving parents of
minor children extra votes in elections), one can
reasonably be skeptical of a movement that is neither pro-life nor pro-family
but merely pro-birth.
Religious
Given the above fiscal and sociological
points, what should a Christian response be to the topic? Children are counted
as a blessing from God (Psa. 127:3-5;4 Deut. 7:13-145),
yet there is no Biblical command that all must wed and have children of their
own. Indeed, marriage is labeled as good but not mandatory practice for
Christians (1 Cor. 7:1-2).6 Far from extolling a universal view of
married parentage for all, both Jesus (Matt. 19:12)7 and Paul are
clear that singleness is a calling for some (1 Cor 7:7-8;8 1 Cor.
7:38).9 Life is a sacred gift that is a monumental responsibility to
steward (1 Tim. 5:8)10 and at times a heavy yoke to bear (Ecc.
6:3-5).11 When children are understood as a blessing yet not a duty,
and when pretensions to ethnic supremacy are thoroughly refuted and disgraced
(Deut. 10:17-19;12 Acts 10:34-35;13 Gal. 3:2814),
the Christian response should be one of freedom and support, not coercion.
Prospective parents should prayerfully consider and discern their calling,
resources, and circumstances when deciding whether to have a child (biological,
adopted, or otherwise). Our hope rests in God's sovereignty, not cultural
power. A natalism that privileges certain populations over others (whether
explicitly or implicitly) risks subordinating the gospel to nationalist
ideology. This is not merely a political error but a theological one, as it
fundamentally misunderstands the nature of God’s kingdom (which is built
through spiritual regeneration rather than biological reproduction).
A Christian approach to family flourishing
must extend beyond increasing birth rates to restoring and strengthening
families in all their forms. Scripture’s call to care for the widow, the
orphan, and the sojourner (James 1:27)15 directs us toward
supporting struggling families, facilitating adoption and foster care, and
creating communities where children already born can thrive. Rather than
viewing low birth rates primarily as a crisis to be solved through political
pressure, Christians might better address the root causes: Why do young adults
feel unable to afford family formation? What barriers prevent willing parents
from providing stable homes? How can churches create a culture that genuinely
supports parents through the demanding seasons of child-rearing? I thus
encourage the Church to champion healthy and happy families via promulgating
policies that remove barriers to having children: affordable health insurance,
paid parental leave, childcare support, and more. This push should be coupled
with honor for those without children, whether or not by choice. The kingdom
comes through disciples made, not babies born.
Endnotes
1 The 0.1 is the
mathematical representation of the tragedy of early deaths in childhood.
2 Formula for population
change in one generation: (initial population ÷ 2)*(fertility rate - 0.1)
3 Net migration to
the U.S. has exceeded 1 million persons per year since 1990, with the
exceptions of 2020 and 2021.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/net-migration
4 "Behold,
children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like
arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the
man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks
with his enemies in the gate." [ESV]
5 "He will
love you, bless you, and multiply you. He will also bless the fruit of your
womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your wine and your oil, the
increase of your herds and the young of your flock, in the land that he swore
to your fathers to give you. You shall be blessed above all peoples. There
shall not be male or female barren among you or among your livestock."
[ESV]
6 "Now
concerning the matters about which you wrote: 'It is good for a man not to have
sexual relations with a woman.' But because of the temptation to sexual
immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own
husband." [ESV]
7 "For there
are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been
made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for
the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this
receive it." [ESV]
8 "I wish that
all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind
and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for
them to remain single, as I am." [ESV]
9 "So then he
who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do
even better." [ESV]
10 "But if
anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his
household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." [ESV]
11 "If a man
fathers a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years
are many, but his soul is not satisfied with life's good things, and he also
has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he. For it comes
in vanity and goes in darkness, and in darkness its name is covered. Moreover,
it has not seen the sun or known anything, yet it finds rest rather than
he." [ESV]
12 "For the
LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the
awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. He executes justice for the
fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and
clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of
Egypt." [ESV]
13 "So Peter
opened his mouth and said: 'Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but
in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to
him.'" [ESV]
14 "There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for
you are all one in Christ Jesus." [ESV]
15 "Religion
that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and
widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." [ESV]
