Neoliberalism is an anti-natalist conspiracy

this but reversed

Enforcement too harsh + side effects.

I am generally not too put off by the idea of forced sterilisation (given that the procedure is minimally invasive; does not infringe on the individual’s bodily integrity beyond their ability to reproduce, and is enforced non-discriminately, irrespective of gender, class, ethnicity etc.). I do not believe that there is such a thing as reproductive rights (rather I believe there is an obligation not to reproduce) and therefore I see no inherent problem in removing one’s ability to reproduce. But what was enforced under the policy is very different from what I have described. So I am on the fence as to whether should count it as a step in the right direction, or object to it, considering the (what I believe to be) abhorrent way it was enforced. At this point I am more inclined to say the latter.

That aside, as I understand it, it is not that fewer children were conceived under the one-child policy; many children were born and then killed, which created a lot of unnecessary suffering. This side effect I find very undesirable.

Zero child policy? I would support it, the only question is how to implement it. Secret comprehensive sterilization by something in the drinking water or in the air or something like that would be an idea. Forced abortions would be a little problematic. David Benatar even initially grants a right to reproduction because the alternatives would not be enforceable for him. But perhaps - in addition to various social and economic incentives for childlessness - the process of legal birth parenthood could be designed in the same way as that of adoption, having to prove your worth.

With utilitarian ethics this could possibly be defended, because the suffering of the (especially created for this) living & dying would exceed those who like to have children, now brought to childlessness

All this a***ysis to find out if the card goes for 30 USD instead of 25

I stated it somewhere here when I first created this account,but I support infant euthanasia. (I think there's an abortion term for a baby that's already been born,but I forgot what it was) They literally don't have the ability to form memories or conscious thought.

Of course,euthanasia means you take care to cause the least amount of suffering in the process. That is really what matters here.

As for what I'd do should I find myself in such an unlikely but catastrophic position,I'm honestly not sure. If I had an excellent chance of getting away with it(The Law doesn't agree with such a decision) and I had the means to ensure painless passing,I may just do it.

More than likely though,I'd probably end up euthanizing the baby and then myself.

speaking of antinatalism r/childfree is having a nuclear meltdown

avg neolib societal a***ysis

avg neolib protest

Two subs have overlap

Please Mr. Anonymous we need your help

tbh this book was basically written specifically to be memed at this exact moment

they shouldn't have overplayed their hands the last forty years

@krishna_bound

Anti natalist folk rock

pretty sure Atwood herself said it wasn't meant to be a cautionary feminist tale but just a commentary on power and history
(still an insufferable lib though)

That’s true its focus is a lot broader than just abortion or feminism

If she acts like she didn’t write the book bc she was triggered by Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell tho that’s cope

i havent read any of her interviews in depth and dont plan to tbh, ive just seen that quote from her in the wild about what the book was on

Man needs to stop whining and move to the Bible Belt or something

This account is the worst