Might make sense if child poverty rates were exceptionally low and birth rates were astronomically high, but when you're below replacement it seems absolutely batshit to further discourage people from having kids.
It discourages births to single mothers, which we incentivize right now by forcing the father to provide a no strings attached subsidy. Kids raised by single mothers have awful outcomes, especially boys. We don't need yet another generation of pussies and criminals because mommy wanted to give birth to a living paycheck.
Besides, the current system already discourages people from having kids. It's hard to justify putting a woman in a position to rob you blind and keep you away from your kids if things don't work out. It's impossible to have a healthy relationship with that Sword of Damocles hanging over your head. Of course we could repeal all the "advances" feminism made and purge the family courts. That would solve the vast majority of our problems and render this discussion largely moot.
It discourages births to single mothers, which we incentivize right now by forcing the father to provide a no strings attached subsidy.
Are you sure? Assume that you are an absolute wretch of a man who does not care about his offspring at all. Right now, you're going to be rather careful, because you're on the hook for 18 years if you impregnate a sentient being with a uterus. On the other hand, as a woman you're already on the hook for 9 months of pregnancy and 18 years of raising a brat, so you're not going to want the kid of some loser.
Now take that away. The wretch will have zero incentive not to get women pregnant. You might as well get as many pregnant as you can - and in fact, that is the evolutionary imperative. I don't think women being more careful will make up for that.
And it will of course lead to massive amounts of child poverty, which will lead to a backlash and more funding for single mothers. It is not sustainable.
Besides, the current system already discourages people from having kids. It's hard to justify putting a woman in a position to rob you blind and keep you away from your kids if things don't work out.
And birth rates are low. So should we make them worse?
Of course we could repeal all the "advances" feminism made and purge the family courts. That would solve the vast majority of our problems and render this discussion largely moot.
A return to Victorianism is something that I will agree with.
Might make sense if child poverty rates were exceptionally low and birth rates were astronomically high, but when you're below replacement it seems absolutely batshit to further discourage people from having kids.
It discourages births to single mothers, which we incentivize right now by forcing the father to provide a no strings attached subsidy. Kids raised by single mothers have awful outcomes, especially boys. We don't need yet another generation of pussies and criminals because mommy wanted to give birth to a living paycheck.
Besides, the current system already discourages people from having kids. It's hard to justify putting a woman in a position to rob you blind and keep you away from your kids if things don't work out. It's impossible to have a healthy relationship with that Sword of Damocles hanging over your head. Of course we could repeal all the "advances" feminism made and purge the family courts. That would solve the vast majority of our problems and render this discussion largely moot.
Are you sure? Assume that you are an absolute wretch of a man who does not care about his offspring at all. Right now, you're going to be rather careful, because you're on the hook for 18 years if you impregnate a sentient being with a uterus. On the other hand, as a woman you're already on the hook for 9 months of pregnancy and 18 years of raising a brat, so you're not going to want the kid of some loser.
Now take that away. The wretch will have zero incentive not to get women pregnant. You might as well get as many pregnant as you can - and in fact, that is the evolutionary imperative. I don't think women being more careful will make up for that.
And it will of course lead to massive amounts of child poverty, which will lead to a backlash and more funding for single mothers. It is not sustainable.
And birth rates are low. So should we make them worse?
A return to Victorianism is something that I will agree with.
Yes. Birth rates should be cut to a sustainable level after 80% of earths population is physically removed.
Didn't take you for a pro-choicer.
Your previous comment suggested that you are. And quite strongly at that.
Pro choice filth.
We're not even coordinating, we just both think you're an asshole who ruins this place.