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.
+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.