Demographic crisis is a major threat. We aren't having enough kids as a society & if this trend continues, we will suffer economic collapse followed by military/political collapse in favor of some other country which solves this 1st.
However, I don't want to sacrifice quality for quantity & have a society overrun with trash people. That will only result in more Democrat voters & our society will be destroyed anyway.
-
Any couples statistically likely to be able to have "good" kids who will be productive members of society, should be increasingly compelled by state incentives & coercion to have kids, including banning them from having abortions [with an exception if the kid is a mutant or retard].
-
Any couples (or single moms) statistically likely to spawn burdens to society should be encouraged to have abortions at the earliest possible time.
What even is this retarded post?
Demographic crisis is a major threat? No, the demographic time bomb has already detonated. Under 16 is already majority non-white European, and the trend is only accelerating as the boomers start to die off. It’s already over. It’s done.
The demographic shift was almost entirely created by Hispanics, who will not start having abortions no matter what the government does to “incentivize” it. Because they value family and procreation on a cultural level. They want kids. At least half of whites do not.
Your solution is what, nebulous coercion by the state? In what reality can a modern western government enforce restrictions on abortion based on demographic categories? How do you imagine that would even work?
Knowing that your “hot take” is utterly impossible from a policy standpoint, this post amounts to pure wishful thinking. “Wouldn’t it be great if x happened?” What’re you, a fucking child?
I don't even like income taxes. The government doesn't even need to know how much money you make or have.
My ability to care begins and ends at "is taxpayer money funding it in any way whatsoever?" Abortion wouldn't be necessary if we were a country of responsible people, and goddammit, I refuse to fund other people's irresponsibility.
true but shitty kids grow up to be very expensive prisoners.
Not if we hang recidivists.
Ideally we'd also kill welfare, but you're certainly correct that it's better for pay for an abortion than to pay to support some whore single mother and her criminal bastard for 18+ years.
Sounds like eugenics to me.
Because it is.
I'd be fine making sterilization mandatory for Democrat voters.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+1 for interesting discussion, but this is braindead and evil, and should probably also be reworded.
Firstly, there aren't enough "rich" to swing the population metrics one way or the other, but I think you just mean decently well off, and not like millionaires and up.
Secondly, and relatedly...have you seen the rich, or even the well off? They're as retarded as the rest of us. I really don't see it being that much of an improvement, possibly even counterproductive as it gives them even more power, which would likely lead to them being even more retarded.
You also have issues with wealth distribution. If you're making the poor have less kids, and the rich/well off have more...that's going to result in a net lowering of population. Even if you end up with "better quality" people, you're not solving any "population crisis."
Incentives, maybe. Coercion, no. And there are even problems with incentives, as they can often be very coercive themselves, such as with subsidies. You'd be taking money from some people, and using it to advantage others.
Pragmatically, and in theory? Can't really argue with that. Realistically and in practice? I see a whole ton of issues. First and foremost, you're having the government officially put differing value on life. I think you'd quickly end up with something like MAID from Canada; euthanasia programs that end up targeting vast swathes of the population. Even if we completely agree that encouraging abortion is good, we have to take the slippery slope into account. I don't think it goes good places.
Lastly, call me old fashioned, but I do still mostly believe in equality. I don't want different policies or laws for people like this, on principle.
I agree with the single mother part. I don't agree that the children of poor people are by definition undesirable. If anything, I don't want Zuckerberg to have children, while the local janitor is pretty cool.
If red states ban abortion and are effective at it, they'll slowly become blue. I'm not sure why this is desirable. Hell, without Roe and the tens of millions of abortions, there probably wouldn't be a single red state, all other things being equal (which they wouldn't be of coures).
I used rich & poor as proxy words since I couldn't fit the whole concept into the title.
The concept is just who is statistically likely to have a productive kid vs a burden kid.
Yes that will certainly be a negative result.
We would have had a huge schism in society since crime never would have fallen from its 1980s highs. America would be some kind of police state.
It seems like that schism was just delayed. I doubt abortion was the only factor, but the reduction in crime probably played a role.
Abortion doesn’t fix intentional importing of third world culture.
The issue is about how women are treated in respect to their capacity and use in a society. Again not an abortion issue. Women are the gatekeepers at the end of the day and unless concubines make a resurgence the only way to fix a low birth rate is to quit pretending “the future is female”.
This is basically just eugenics with a “you can keep it if the the baby isn’t retarded” argument. If you really want the government to have this capacity you are a fool.
Under this metric people like Ben Carson, Thomas Sowell, Steve Jobs, etc would have been aborted.
This is some illuminati villain-tier, forget hot takes.
Something is morally wrong with you, here's hoping you find some kind of love in your life that makes you change your Machiavellian, Nietzche-tier delusions.
"Rich" probably isn't the best metric to go by, biologically speaking.
If we're going to do this we need to make abortion more than allowed for the leech class: It should be mandatory. Otherwise you're losing rights by being productive, and that's not a good incentive structure. This would also have to take into account the father side of the equation: the divorce laws need to change and the family courts need to be purged as it is, but that becomes 100x more important under this proposal. A woman being able to leave a man for any or no reason but continue to work him into the grave to support her lifestyle needs to change, especially if we're removing ways for them to avoid becoming legally entangled in the first place. The people you want to have more kids have the most to lose in family court under the current system.
Novel I read many years ago, In Conquest Born, had these two galactic empires basically at a stalemate. One of them was nominally democratic and just, but ruthlessly enforced uniformity on its populace
The other was ruled by a small population who literally could put anyone else to death on a whim and were wealthy overlords, but, for the average citizen, they had far more freedoms than in the other empire.
Anyway, the tiny pure-blooded population who ruled the one empire had reproduction problems. Not enough genetic diversity, not enough kids, and women had trouble carrying kids to term.
Well, the laws of this empire mandated that every member of the ruling class must have 5 kids. This meant that even undesirables with healthy issues HAD to have 5 kids. As a result of this forced breeding, they were making their own issues worse.
Not really relevant, but it was a good book.
No because it buys into the narrative that the 'wrong people' are having kids as this clip helpfully illustrates than a break down of the reasons why there's a disparity in birth rates then introduce a third party to the equation:
First why the 'rich' don't have as many kids, the dating pool is one reason as not only is it more toxic than reactor 5, the more wealthy have to deal with gold diggers not only draining their money but not even interested in having lots of kids with the plentiful resources available. Some of it is the buying into 'muh climate change, education, racism they may experience' blah blah blah but a lot of it is excuses from women that see kids as a burden and responsibility than a privilege AND responsibility and so neglect their natural urges.
Now on the 'poor' side, the governments in the west have been incentivising having a new 'surf' class, one dependant on government handouts so that they wouldn't object to more government overreach. Because all burdens even childcare have been removed, they have more kids.
Now there's a third class I want to introduce to this, the religious. The devout that still hold onto their beliefs are more likely to procreate to have more offspring to follow their faith. This is true regardless of country and they are the mostly likely to dominate if ALL government incentives are removed or if this plan of incentivised abortions is put in place for single moms etc.
The 'good' people not having enough kids either are victims of a toxic dating culture or npcs, limiting abortions won't solve that.
You earned a chuckle
On the serious side if guys don't understand what mean, look up medieval Europe especially England, it's not slavery but you only earn enough to exist and are living by the grace of your Lords. That's what a lot of western governments are aiming for.
It's a difficult subject. I know some people who really shouldn't have kids. At least one of them has been offered a fully paid sterility operation by her family. So, these people exist.
However, I also know the kids from these pieces of shit. I'm working to adopt one, and have had several others in my house as foster kids. If I say they need to cut the line, which kid would I choose to not exist so society is better? As a foster parent, that's a terrifying thought even though I agree with the sentiment.
cuck: abortion is a woman's right!
normiecon: abortion kills a baby!
giga-chad: what race is it?