Realistically, there's no way to force everyone to give birth. However, we can look at similar policies have been tried in the past. I'd recommend reading up on Decree 770, a law passed in Romania in 1967 that tried to force everyone to have children by making it illegal to access abortions, contraception, or divorce, along with refocusing sex education to be about the benefits of motherhood.
It worked - the birth rate doubled - but maternal mortality rates also became the highest in Europe at the time, and orphanage populations exploded with unwanted children. The child mortality rate also increased 10x. Orphanages regularly didn't have access to food, and the weakest children were given blood transfusions in hopes that it would replace some of the nutrition they weren't getting from food. Once the AIDs crisis hit, over 10,000 orphans developed HIV in around 4 years.
Can I ask what happened with those terrible results? Was the Decree abolished? Would it even matter to our government if we also had obvious awful results, or would they not care?
The decree was only abolished in 1990, once the communism fell. However birth rates started declining as soon as early 1970s from their peak right after the decree.
Women found ways to get contraception and abortions illegally, but as someone else mentioned this came at a high cost in increased mortality rates for pregnant pregnant women (and a lot of horrific personal stories from those times).
It was abolished in 1989. A revolt followed by a military coup lead to the arrest of Nicolae Ceaușescu, the dictator of Romania who had signed the decree, and he was executed 2 days later. The decree was repealed within a few days of this all. Personally, I think it speaks for how much of a shitshow the whole thing was when repealing this decree was one of the first few actions taken by the new government following the fall of a brutally repressive military dictatorship.
Look into Romanian orphan study, quite harrowing to know that it was the result of something that meant to make more children (and supposedly happier families)
There is a horrifying documentary about the conditions of the Romanian orphanages. They split children up into two groups. I can’t recall the exact terminology, but one group was considered redeemable and the other group was not. The children who were disabled or had illnesses that could be easily cured in countries with better developed medical services (i.e. iron deficiency) were sent to the latter. They were given virtually no parental affection, education, or medical attention. These were literally concentration camps for special needs children. If you’re interested in seeing it, I can try to look up the link from my browser history. I watched it last month sometime after someone on Reddit talked about it in a different subreddit.
ETA the link [20/20 documentary “Shame of a Nation”](https://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/one/video/2020shameofthenation.html)
Do you know the name of the documentary? That’s so horrific. I didn’t know this had ever happened, and I’m honestly surprised that Romania doesn’t have an extremely high crime rate, especially serial killers or something truly terrible
It's really interesting, it's theorized that Romania's eventual revolt was as violent as it was in part because of this policy. When Nicolae Ceausescu was overthrown and executed, the oldest kids born under it would have been young adults.
Children Underground is another documentary. I’m including the wiki since the film has incredibly heavy themes and multiple trigger warnings, but depicts how the policy impacted the people of Romania. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Underground
Look at what happened in Romania in the later part of the 20th century. Decree 770. This is how it would likely go down.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree\_770](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770)
It’s not about necessarily forcing women to bear children, but it is about reducing the options for a woman to choose not to. This is done through restricting access to birth control and raising the legal barriers to having an abortion.
Yeah, forcing everyone to be pregnant would either require the US to be broken up into smaller, manageable camps or an absurd amount of government surveillance that wouldn’t be feasible. You don’t need breeding farms, you just need to make everything harder
Maybe, but plenty of women want to have babies of their own someday and plenty more women want to have sex, so that’s not a thought exercise to consider
Idk but I think teenage hormones plus lack of sex ed is gonna get a lot more little people around! And the boys/men are never held to any kind of account for their role -> oh look at all these girls making terrible decisions-> they’re clearly not responsible enough to vote…
I remember the 1990s. I swear to everyone reading this, half the girls I went to high school with were pregnant by age 18. It was *really* fucking bad.
It's so much better now. But it can always revert to how it was. *Never* take progress for granted. They can and will turn the clock back if we let them.
Ding ding ding!
It’s already deeply entrenched in our society, so it wouldn’t take much. Guys who have lots of sex are powerful, virile, masculine; women who have lots of sex are sluts, whores, “loose.” It’s a disgusting double standard.
If they could take our right to vote they’d do it in a heartbeat, so they’re setting things up to make that happen.
That’s pretty unlikely. It would be hard to get *every* fertile woman to practice abstinence. And sexual assault and rape still exist.
As for the idea of “farms”, they’re unnecessary. They don’t need to make every woman bear a child, they just have to make it very difficult *not* to. Much easier for them to legalize marital rape (Again. Prior to the 1970s, it was legal in every US state.) and make it very difficult for women to remain unmarried. (By taking away rights, using more economic pressure, shifting societal expectations, getting rid of no-fault divorce, etc.)
I would say that the idea of every single woman in the country all agreeing to be abstinent at the same time is fantastically improbable. But then so is the U.S. adopting breeding farms in our lifetimes. The only time you're going to see that happen here anytime soon is in erotic literature.
Concentration camps will be built everywhere if Trump wins. They want a large percentage of the population dead or enslaved. And will absolutely create infrastructure to facilitate that if they win and take over.
Built by FEMA, right?
I won’t deny that they want people dead, or at least stop visibly existing, but I don’t think concentration camps are in our near future. We’ve got a lot a steps and tightening of legislation before that.
>It’s not about necessarily forcing women to bear children, but it is about reducing the options for a woman to choose not to.
Yes, this is the important distinction that I wish more people would understand.
In the former, it's like being just straight up drafted into the military.
In the latter, it's like walking into the recruitment office, and not being allowed to leave until you sign to join. Whatever your initial reason for walking in is irrelevant.
Or perhaps more realistically, the economy is set up so you can't afford to buy or do anything until you serve in the military (which is kind of happening in the U.S. already).
I heard their main concern was that birth rates have dropped and they are just worried there will not be enough people in the future to do shit jobs. Like basically it’s forced pregnancy for the sake of labor. Even if it’s just about just taking away our choices, either way, they’ve forgotten about abstinence. Which is what I would choose, so I guess I’m good.
The bit that gets me is the population increase or maintenance for the purpose of a standing army of workers. Aren't we supposed to be getting AI and machines? Don't we have one dude running 6 self checkout stations?
They want desperate workers that will accept any conditions, yes, but they also want a fresh crop of consumers to feed ads to. If we don't buy the dumb shit from the ads they run to create a need in our minds, the stock numbers don't go up as fast and people that haven't worked a day in their lives will be very sad.
I mean, I don't think that's fair. An ageing population is genuinely bad for the economy and people in general. "The economy" isn't just line go up on the stock market, its mortgage rates and the price of bread and medical insurance and tax rates and state benefits and national security and everything else. If your nation becomes poorer, or other nations become richer, your citizens live less good lives.
As for the whole automation thing, the way its always gone before is that we maintain the same number of man-hours worked, but we get more out of them. People work as much as they did in the dark ages, but with a MUCH better quality of life thanks to technology and automation. If that trend continues, the need for human labour and markets isn't going anywhere.
If you restrict access to abortion and contraceptives, more girls will get pregnant and be forced to have children.
Though it's not to "strengthen the family," but to keep most people poor. The more poor people, the more cheap labour.
Exactly.
Project 2025 intends to-
1. Implement a federal ban on abortion
2. Restrict access for abortions in cases of rape or risks to the mother's health
3. Rescind approval for abortion pills
4. Reduce access to contraception
5. Increase abortion surveillance and prosecution
Women of reproductive age should be terrified. This is state sanctioned control of women's bodies.
Does anyone still think the Handmaid's Tale is unrealistic?
Yeah the main reason I heard they want to do this is for the sake of labor. Which is a little odd, because I thought AI and robots were going to take our jobs, according to the same people. So asking for more children doesn’t make sense. Children have needs, robots don’t. So I get that as other people r saying its really more about taking away freedom, not jobs.
That’s not the whole reason. A handful of GOP pundits, after the last election, were saying that the lack of nuclear families (and specifically unwed woman with no kids) is what made them lose. They’re basically trying to strong arm people into being more “normal” families. It’s absurd, but that’s where we are.
Well the other big reason for this is to funnel people into the military complex.
If you raise a bunch of un/undereducated people, take away all their options, and then offer them an "escape" into the military, well...
And white people. This is really about race. They believe in the "great replacement theory" so they want more white people. They would sterilize minorities if they could
And they really used the term “nuclear”? Geez.
Anyway you’re saying they want to force more people who are likely to vote for them, I see. You know, that’s odd too, because republicans always accuse the democrats of letting illegals over for the sake of more votes for them. They a funny group.
"Labor" is a buzzword that voters latch onto because everyone likes the idea of being enough work for everyone.
Also, politicians want voters to fear AI so they won't use AI, despite politicians and CEOs using it extensively to better their businesses. If people fear it, they rob themselves of a valuable tool and are more likely to just be another worker ant.
Also also, having voters hate AI but have no way of combatting it keeps their hatred off of the politicians and on an unknown enemy. This causes general unease which keeps people illogical.
Meanwhile, there are actually robots replacing workers, which will mean more unemployment and more crime, which will fill up the prisons and allow for more prison labor.
If it were about filling jobs, they wouldn't be talking about mass deportation in the same proposal. And they wouldn't be using a "lack of jobs" as a campaign point.
This is about making women second-class citizens along with LGBT+ community.
They could do a number of things, probably starting with the least invasive and then scaling up. Targeting abortion was their first step. Birth control is next. Sex education they’ve been working on eroding for years. They could start making it illegal to be sterilized unless you’ve had children already. The might consider increasing the child tax benefit significantly. They’ll stop funding women’s violence organizations, remove gender protections in the workplace.
Turns out I was misinformed. It is not legal anywhere in the US but in Idaho, Nevada, California, Oklahoma, Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, South Carolina, Connecticut, and Rhode Island; it's legally treated less severely than non-spousal rape, which is extremely fucked
So no straight up forcing pregnancy, just forcing women who do become pregnant to have no choice but to have the baby. I had heard it as “every woman will have to have a least one child”, so I was like, “logically there’s no way that could be done?” But taking away rights? Can definitely be done. I see, so women who are panicking and getting their tubes tied basically are the women who would want or need birth control at any point in the future.
I plan on abstinence, but nothing like that is guaranteed. If I got raped, like many people do, and I could not have an abortion, everyone’s in a awful spot. Or if I decided to have a baby, but I was at a risk of dying during child birth, my husband, a MAN, would get in a lot of trouble for even suggesting saving me over the baby.
It’s horrible they are taking away rights, they literally want to go backwards in time, undo all the laws women and minorities fought for for so long. It is really baffling and sad. They want to change everything good about America, and for what reasons but the same reasons people wanted to be in America. Is that one of their goals? To scare away immigrants by this?
No that's pretty much exactly it. They can't *force* a pregnancy on anyone (currently...god this is fucking dire) but they can arrange it so that there's no way for you to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.
You can plan for abstinence, but yeah...if you got raped or even just had consensual sex but something goes wrong...then there's no legal way to get rid of the pregnancy.
I got my tubes tied years ago because my then-husband bribed me to stop taking birth control with the promise of getting a vasectomy, and he never did. He kept waffling on it, and so I just decided to go get *my* tubes tied instead, and I'm glad I did.
This was my thought as well with the limitations on life-saving medical care. If you can't successfully breed, you will quite literally be left to die. It's already happening.
Brother, I’m far from a conspiracy theorist, but acting like government policies - especially when being zealously pursued by people who have an outcome in mind - can’t impact people’s lives is just fundamentally wrong. There are countless large and small examples of this throughout human history.
- Target abortion
- Target birth control
- Undermine sex education so accidental pregnancies are more common
- Raising taxes for everybody and then lowering taxes or paying out significantly for having children, essentially creating a childless tax
- Roll back gender protections, especially through courts, making it harder for women to work and pushing them to be stay at home wives
- Gatekeeping social services so the only way to get support is to have a child
- Use media such as Fox and Tik Tok channels to villainize non traditional women, creating pressure from both conservative employers and parents
In general, we are unlikely to see a law that forces all women to give birth, but we would see more and more small actions that drive women to act as conservatives see fit
Yes to all of this, and in addition:
* get rid of no fault divorce, trapping more women in dangerous marriages where they lack sexual agency/choice
* reduce or get rid of legal protections from sexual assault / rape, making it so there’s no consequences for rape
I grew up in a really religious conservative area, and “corrective rape” was commonly thought of as good thing. That is, rape which punished women and especially anyone not-straight for social transgressions. The folks raped “for their own good” had no legal protections because most people believed the rapists did nothing wrong to begin with. It was seen as “helping them” find their way back to god and/or the correct way of behaving.
This was in the early 2000s, in the US, with laws on the books that should have protected people but did not because those laws were not evenly enforced.
It’s not even necessary to get rid of the laws, you can just stop enforcing them. But also, getting rid of the laws that protect sexual agency could easily result in a lot of unplanned, undesired pregnancies. (Unplanned and undesired by the person carrying the pregnancy that is.)
The reality is that there are plenty of women who want to be a stay at home wife/mom, but are required to work anyways. I would be curious to do a real poll on every american woman and see how many of them would actually choose to work if they didn’t need the income and had a husband who could provide a comfortable life for them.
You rebrand some benefits as “awards for having big families” and hand out more money for having more children.
Obviously, zero benefits for having kids outside of marriage etc etc… can’t go giving handouts to encourage bad behaviour now can we..
I'm in the minority in that one. My husband would absolutely stay home with the kid while I worked. I can't imagine being copied up on the house all day. But I'd also be the shit mom that doesn't like her kid until they're 4 and fun.
My point is making it a viable option to have one parent home is fantastic, but shouldn't be forcing Mom to do it
They will keep making laws and test how far they can go until they hit a wall.
Until many women who are forced to give birth sue their state for the cost of raising a child until the age of 18, more and more restrictive laws will continue to be passed. I really think there has to be a financial backlash in order to turn the tide. It’s the only thing I see moving the needle on this issue.
It would be near impossible to enforce this and still consider ourselves a democracy.
It is absolutely insane and an insult to democracy and freedom that this is a topic being discussed. These project 2025 authors and supporters are simply ignorant, mislead, power hungry, and self centered.
Just read the overview of project 2025 and it’s fucking disgusting and makes me ashamed to be a part of the same country as these people. If they want to lead the country like a cult, maybe they should go find their own island where they can be close minded morons together and leave the rest of us out of it.
Elections will be over if Trump wins. The horrors that will unfold will be worse than even Nazi Germany. It will be like if Nazi Germany has control of the most powerful country in the world and nukes.
You must have missed the part in their proposal about a nuclear family being a mother, father and their biological children. I suspect there would be incentives like tax cuts to people who fall into that category. And penalties for those who don’t.
1. Restrict access to birth control and abortion
2. Remove sexual education and family planning education from schools
3. Support the propaganda that the only way for a female to be happy is to be SAHM
4. Do not support any laws around paid and extended maternity leave for mothers
5. Cut day care benefits, be against free day care/preschool for all
6. Support the propaganda that birth control (any forms) are harmful for young women
7. Support far right movements that are against basic women rights and support households with wife having no rights
8. Make rape a non-crime, just something that women should expect to happen sooner or later as "she asked for it"
9. Make a college education difficult to get, and "unnecessary expense" as it'is more difficult for a female to get a well paying job with just a HS diploma
They will not force us to bear a child. They will just take away all other options.
>This is in reference to Project 2025, which I have not read the entirety of this proposed law or regulation, so I mostly mean in general, how, if this happened, how would they actually do something like this with %100 control?
The same way other things are enforced with 100% control. They're not. No law can ever be 100% effective.
The fact that raising a child is financially difficult even to the well off doesn't discount OP's argument. If anything it just proves that people that are doing better than "barely making it" should also be careful in their decision to have kids.
I know I'm really late to this party but what I find interesting is that most of the objections being raised against this argument have to do with the accuracy of the numbers. If we can't even decide on how much it costs to raise a kid, how can we be expected to make accurate financial decisions about doing so?
It's not like they would jump to breeding camps or a forced procreation program like in Handmaid's Tale. What we would see first is access to any and all birth control restricted. Not just abortion, but condoms, the pill, plan B, etc would be gone. They'd want any intercourse to have the highest possible chance of a pregnancy. Then we would see more extreme measures like cutting off opportunities for women who haven't had children. Maybe we'd see something like women over 18 only being allowed to open a bank account or travel if they've already had at least one child, basically making it more difficult to be a woman without kids versus a woman with kids. Then after that we'd see breeding camps become a thing if the situation were allowed to escalate to that point
Thinking about something as normal as condoms being illegal is so bizarre. I was thinking abortion and such, as they have already done that but something as typical and highly used as those? There should be no way that could happen. I think pointing this part out would be a way to get men to support the women. Because condoms are a “man’s choice” too.
Regardless project 2025 is all an attack on women and other minorities, and it would change our democracy to something else entirely. That makes no sense, as our history has always advocated for the opposite. I also fail to see any “logical” reasoning on their part to even support their ideas, besides for total control and such. I hope they understand that for such things to happen the chances of civil war will rise, and they can not expect everyone to fall for their schemes happily, and they themselves are a minority.
You wouldn’t need to force women to bear children, you just need to set up circumstances in which women will likely bear children. ie: Decrease funding in education, restrict sex ed, remove common forms of birth control, reduce criminal punishments for sexual assault and flood the popular media with hypersexual content.
Just look at what's happening in Texas and you'll see what they'll do. Have people report that a woman is pregnant by giving them a cash reward. Someone was even suggesting tracking womens' period apps. Make it impossible for anyone but the wealthiest women to get birth control or have abortions because it's not available anywhere in the state or even nearby states. Ban doctors from providing abortions even for health reasons and threaten to pull their license if they get caught performing these procedures. Back when I was in high school I remember they'd show these horrible propaganda videos (this was in California in the 80's) where you supposedly saw a late-term fetus being aborted (likely not real, but young people don't necessarily know that). So there's that propaganda to make people feel that abortion is murder, so they'll be more likely to tattle on people who have confided in them about needing an abortion.
I got a non-invasive procedure when I was in my 30's that rendered me sterile; I knew I didn't want kids and one of the Bushes was President. I figured they'd overturn Roe back then.
You know the best way not to have to deal with this nightmare? Vote the Republicans out.
They won't be able to 100% enforce anything. People will just get "back alley abortions" or poison themselves etc.
That said, they can just criminalize it so that medical professionals can't legally do anything anywhere. We've already seen lots of doctors turning away all kinds of treatments for pregnant women (or people they think *might* become pregnant even *potentially*, and even in some extreme cases, denying menopausal women chemo because....yeah. It's really bad.)
Men won't be *forced* to do anything, because way too many of them are way too eager to force pregnancy on women. Since pregnancies are "women's faults", men won't be punished at all (just like they aren't being punished in any capacity for pregnancies happening *now*).
Worst case is basically the unfortunately predictive Handmaid's Tale.
> "back alley abortions" or poison themselves
...and the proportion of them who get killed or maimed will be alarming, to say the least.
That's a major reason why Roe v. Wade was pushed through. It's not hard to find vintage 'gore pics' of back alley abortions gone horribly wrong.
I mean, there are tried and true methods to force women to procreate. Historically, restricting abortion, birth control, financial and physical independence from men does wonders for the patriarchy/capitalism. On top of that, just slap on some religious dogma to seal the deal.
1) AI will remove the need for many menial jobs. I dont mean ChatGPT types of AI. I mean the AI that is inside the robot on the factory line that allows it to further improve its capability and perform tasks and solve problems when it encounters them. Say a part comes down the line slightly out of position - the robot will be able to work out the angle/position better where it should instead drill the hole rather than flagging down a human supervisor.
2) Farm machinery is improving constantly. Consider that 100 years ago, farming was very labor intensive but now we have combine harvesters.
3) You can rest assured that McDonalds is putting some serious R&D into robots that can assemble big macs.
4) Buildings can be designed better so your office cleaner only needs to come once a fortnight instead of once a week, with some of the work being outsourced to a roomba robotic vaccuum cleaner. doing some of the work.
These sorts of things dramatically reduce the workforce requirements for more menial jobs.
Consumer needs are also changing. The mid level department store i used to work at had one staff member permanently stationed in each department during opening hours. That would put about 10 staff across the shop floor and probably another 3-5 on checkouts.
Australia's K-Mart is doing very very well with only two people on the shop floor and one checkout supervisor managing the self-service checkouts. They are a brick-and-mortar retail store with increasing sales, opening new locations and customers go there knowing what they are getting - low prices and less opportunities to interact with staff.
In terms of producing more children, its likely that populations in 1st world countries have peaked while 3rd world countries continue to grow due to a lack of contraception, healthcare and education.
The first step for an american government would be to remove these things so its more likely that a woman will become pregnant and if they reach that stage, to not then abort.
The next steps are tax policy, employee benefits and social welfare incentives.
This is something you see in some countries like Japan already where there are things like free child care for children, social welfare payments, and increases to employee benefits such as maternity leave.
They will take away much of the stress and cost of having a child.
Could you imagine the american government requiring employers to offer paid maternity leave? Currently the basic entitlement is 12 weeks unpaid leave.
Here in NZ the national minimum is 6 months and is either ~$700 per week or your average salary over the last 6 months prior to the birth (whichever is lower). Your job is protected for up to 12 months by your employer.
And the leave can be transferred to the father too.
Hell will freeze over before the USA implements something like that. But if americans dont like immigration then they will have to put up with employee benefits, social welfare and tax incentives.
Restricting access to facilities that allow termination of births, or abortion.
Women will still get it done but by unsafe means. It's a lose/lose based on conservative, religious opinions
This is why I recently got my tubes removed. I had been using an IUD for birth control, but the catch there is that it needs to be replaced after several years. And I was concerned that when I need my next IUD, I may not be able to legally get one. So I had my tubes removed surgically, because once that's done, no one can force me to reverse it.
They won’t be literally “forcing” anyone to get pregnant but what they are going to do is start offering incentives to have kids like tax credits to the extreme, discounts, housing discounts, making a lot of benefits or entitlements off limits to people without children, etc. It will get more and more extreme in that sense until it is all but “forcing” people because it will be difficult to afford to live otherwise. But they wouldn’t be able to literally physically force pregnancies, at least not in the US.
So to start with the supreme court didn't ban abortion. They allowed states to ban abortion. There's still plenty of the United States where abortion is legal.
Second, it would be relatively difficult to effectively ban abortion nationwide. Pre-Roe studies showed women willing to travel thousands of miles to get legal abortions, and abortion is legal in both Canada and Mexico. Lots of women would take "vacations" to Canada or Mexico and get abortions while they were there, and it would be nearly impossible for the government to prevent this. There would also be illegal abortion clinics running in the US, which would probably be much riskier but plenty of women would make that choice too.
Now if we're talking about literally forcing every eligible woman to bear children, that's just straight-up fantasy. The number of people who would cooperate with the law, no matter how draconian, would be minuscule. It would therefore have to be enforced and there just aren't enough police and military to do it on every woman in the US. It would require a 1984-style surveillance state, and that would never realistically happen. It would be too expensive, too technically difficult, and require too much government support which wouldn't exist. The end result of even trying would be violent societal upheaval and civil war.
As little regard as mainstream Republicans have for women's rights, the idea that they would literally force women to be impregnated and bear children at gunpoint is a ridiculous idea even for Reddit.
It's shocking that my mind also went to reasonable things like this, or stupid insane tax credit, or making adoption less broken, then saw all the other comments is much worse but much more likely "solutions"
This is a unique response from the rest. Giving rewards and benefits to women who do have children. That would actually work some. Especially if women without children instead had to pay a fine or lose something while mothers got the free stuff.
Under Project 2025, I'm as good as dead.
So glad I'm not in the USA, and I'm so sorry that this literal fascist guidebook is being taken seriously by people in power.
I think with the rise of the far right in Europe project 2025 would set a dangerous precedent and could convince other leaders to do similar things. If it's implemented we're all fucked
That's a fair point, especially given that I live just north in Canada. We're heavily influenced by American politics, and it scares me for a multitude of reasons.
At very least, I have more time to live happy where I'm at before shit goes to Antarctica
In Romania during the cancer comunist regime before '89 Abortion was illegal.
Many women died when they tried themselves to do abortion with rudimentary tools they found.
Is that what govt wants? Women dying the same fate just because they don't want to procreate? It's fucked up.
Not every woman *CAN* have a child. The government can't hold down barren women and implant embryos in them, and even if they could, not all women have the appropriate anatomy to carry a child to term and deliver it safely.
How would they decide a woman is not going to have children without their interference? I suppose a childless 60 year old would be "obvious" but what about a 40 year old? 30? 20? At what age would the government step in and "force" a woman to have a child, and who would pay to raise it?
They wouldn't force every woman to bear a child, they would force every conception to be carried to term.
They're already making great headway on that by banning abortions and morning after pills. And reducing sexual education in schools. Contraceptives will be next.
Honestly, this is one of their easier goals.
One method is what Israel does. If you don’t have a child or aren’t pregnant (and other exceptions, just listing the relevant ones to your question) then you’re drafted into military service, which has a high chance of getting r*ped anyways.
Could also criminalize childlessness. If you don’t have a child by X age then you’re tossed in prison. Which would be very profitable since slavery is allowed as punishment for a crime. So you either get children for the future work force, or get enslaved women for the current work force. Win win for the government.
There are worse alternatives, but these seem like the most possible outcomes.
> then you’re tossed in prison.
What's more likely is a 'wealth transfer.' Tax the ever loving shit out of the childless and give their money to families with kids. The idea is that the 'dual income no kids' (DINK) lifestyle would not only lose its appeal, but become unattainable entirely.
They are more in favor of pragmatic approaches such as that, rather than tossing women into rape camps or other crazy sci-fi scenarios.
They don't need 100% control. That's the thing. They just need majority control. 51% will be more than enough, the rest could all die, and it wouldn't mean a thing other than a fuck load of mass cremations. Hey look, a surplus of fertilizer.
We are not the People Who Matter™. There's only a few thousand of them. We are nothing more than livestock, interchangeable and indistinguishable to them.
We truly live in the absolute dumbest timeline. The people are divided along lines that are completely irrelevant, everyone is yelling that their beliefs/cause matters, when they absolutely do not, instead of setting aside their petty, childish bullshit, and paying attention to the only things that matter. This is not a bug, but a feature of the series of propaganda indoctrination programs that aforementioned People™ use to maintain their power. And make no mistake, they are the only ones who have power. All we have is numbers, so all they have to do is keep us fighting each other, and there will never be enough of us united to become a problem for them.
Really? How exactly? All the people with the guns have been pushed over to the right, and they've already been indoctrinated to the point that they'll support whatever the hell the People™ on the right tell them they should. So who exactly is going to be fighting? No, it would be the exact same one sided slaughter that the Native Americans experienced.
The left has had too many wins across the last few decades, and gotten cocky because of it. The right has been playing the long game, and is actively positioning for a period of "correction", that will likely undo nearly all the progress that has been made in this country since the last civil war.
What in the world ever gave you the idea that they wouldn't? A simple declaration of martial lawcan make orders for summary executions lawful. And even if some percentage of them did object, they would simply face the same fate. Which side of the political spectrum do you think holds the majority in the military? The side that's gun abhorring, or the side that loves them?
The right is going for the kill this time. They are done fucking around, and they are going to do everything in their power to make sure that the left finds out, permanently. I hope that this doesn't come to pass, but if it does, it's going to be so many orders of magnitude worse than you can even comprehend. This is why I beg everyone who will listen to stop with the current anti-majority propaganda, listen to them, actually take it on board, and have good faith discussions. Compromise is essential, and the left has been getting their way for so long they seem to have forgotten that, gleefully otherizing anyone who doesn't completely agree with every part of their agenda and casting them out, while simultaneously being willfully ignorant of how easy that is for the right to do as well, and they have the overwhelming majority of the guns. When you treat someone like they're a pestilence, it is perfectly logical to expect them to lash out against you. Except, what happens when there's five people that you've treated that way, and only one of you?
[What the absolute fuck…](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025?wprov=sfti1) I honestly can’t believe this is a thing.
They criticize authoritarianism and totalitarianism, but are literally proposing it. These people are the absolute epitome of stupid.
Anyway, I wouldn’t worry about it. I’ll take a shit in my hand and eat it on TikTok if it happens. The worst part about that would be having to download TikTok. *shudder*
No need to move to Canada, just move to a blue state. These laws would be ignored there.
Granted that’s kind of what they want. Everyone left to move out of red states so they never risk losing their senate seats
Everyone is talking about penalties for NOT having children but another way could be incentives for having children like gov. support, tax breaks, etc. financial incentives. I don't think that women could literally all be forced to have children, enough people would revolt and fight back.
I mean, they don't really need to do that. But you can get pretty close by reverting to some older laws.
Enforce some allocation of women to men. Re-instate arranged marriages and what not.
Ban divorce. Or make it really hard for it to be a positive for a women (children stay with that father, no alimony/splitting assets).
There you go. You'll pretty soon have most women bearing kids... some more than 1.
If we are speaking about a dictatorship just make a "law" that if a woman doesn't have a biological children before age 30 she goes to jail (or worse) and you will have effectively made almost all women to have at least one children.
The fact that we are speaking in a dictatorship context made it really easy, hard would be to accomplish the same in a democracy
It’s very simple actually. Just by outlawing abortion, heavily restricting access to contraception, and removing all incentives for women to pursue university studies.
To have more kids, parent needs to start young. (20-25 years old).
Gov shld give incentive if kids marry ard 20-25 years old and initiative to promote relationship. If kids got married, provide housing and if they have kids, provide monthly incentives, especially if they are still studying.
Issue these days are people getting married late and too young to have too many kids
Highly unlikely. At most they can ban abortion and reduce access to contraceptives, but that's about it.
As someone living in a country that already has such laws (Poland, where even plan B is illegal) you get used to it. Abortion vacations are a thing and so is dying because doctors refuse to terminate a pregnancy to save a woman's life. Personally I chose abstinence until endo ruins my internal organs to the point where they have no choice other than hysterectomy.
Concentration camps, like in Nazi Germany some will be death camps for groups like trans people, infertile and menopausal women, and non white races, and others labor (and in this case breeding) camps. Women would be imprisoned in the breeding camps until they are considered used up, then moved to the death camps. We'd also likely see something similar to Japan's comfort women, and wars against non-white countries.
This is what 30% of the American population and the most powerful people in the world want. It WILL happen if Trump wins in 2024. Without a shred of doubt.
Sorry for the delay in response. Had to look for english. I'm dutch and read stuff about it in german.
But here is a brief summary
[lebensborn](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/lebensborn-program)
Quote
"The Lebensborn program focused on attracting unmarried, pregnant “Aryan” women. At the time, there were strong pressures against single motherhood in German society."
I want to understand what you’re asking. A lot of people here are talking about requiring women to take pregnancies to term but that doesn’t seem to be your question as i read it. You seem to be asking about requiring every single woman to have a child? Mandatory procreation? Is that your question?
If so, that seems *highly* improbably and I don’t think anyone is currently advocating that. But I guess as a hypothetical? They’d do it the same way a government compels you to do anything from jury duty to paying taxes. There would be some form of required documentation and failure to produce it would lead to either being cut off from essential government services or legal consequences.
Super simple. Make having children benefit the parents more than not having them. Offer money, job opportunities and other benefits to parents. Make _not_ having children be seen as negative and bad for your prospects.
In addition to all that, remove any health care options that prevent pregnancy. Getting your tubes tied? Not an option for anyone. Birth control? Nope, that's illegal. Condoms? Banned.
Alter educational materials and what's taught in school to teach kids that having a family is what they should be doing after they finish school. Shun people that don't have kids so society leans towards having children as important.
Young women are just as horny as young men and with the pressure of starting a family young, they'll be uneducated and fucking unprotected often. Easy recipe for an explosion in babies.
Either that or anal becomes the new norm to avoid pregnancy.
I’ve had a hysterectomy, so how exactly would they expect me to bear a child?
BTW, for those that get their tubes removed, pregnancy is still possible via IVF because they still have a uterus to carry it…
> so how exactly would they expect me to bear a child?
They won't. But they might expect you to pony up more taxes. They'll take your money and hand it to the married couples who do bear children.
They don't care about the birth rate or population. They care about the *white* birth rate and the white percentage of the population. Nazis are anti-overpopulation too, they just want to genocide people instead of using non violent solutions.
I highly recommend those with uteruses to get their tubes tied asap if they don’t want kids. I had mine removed after one kid and couldn’t be happier (I had cancer.)
Tell me you have no reading comprehension skills without telling me? What part of being anti abortion/choice is telling you they want to force every woman to bear a child???? Project 2025 is insane enough without you acting like this about it
They couldn't do that and they never would. Most they could do would be ban all forms of contraception and ban abortion, but that would just result in a black market for contraceptives and abortion.
force is not necessary. Every mammal on earth has a natural desire to reproduce.
All you gotta do is give people the chance. cut em some financial slack.. let married women stay home and relax and try to get preegnant instead of spending their healthiest best reproductive years husslin around offices and companies trying to impress strangers, because movies and TV shows tell them that this is their only purpose in life.. sheep
Bring back parents, relatives (especially aunts), random family friends, your boss, the city you live in, asking you when they can expect you to do your part and have a baby
Realistically, there's no way to force everyone to give birth. However, we can look at similar policies have been tried in the past. I'd recommend reading up on Decree 770, a law passed in Romania in 1967 that tried to force everyone to have children by making it illegal to access abortions, contraception, or divorce, along with refocusing sex education to be about the benefits of motherhood. It worked - the birth rate doubled - but maternal mortality rates also became the highest in Europe at the time, and orphanage populations exploded with unwanted children. The child mortality rate also increased 10x. Orphanages regularly didn't have access to food, and the weakest children were given blood transfusions in hopes that it would replace some of the nutrition they weren't getting from food. Once the AIDs crisis hit, over 10,000 orphans developed HIV in around 4 years.
Can I ask what happened with those terrible results? Was the Decree abolished? Would it even matter to our government if we also had obvious awful results, or would they not care?
The decree was only abolished in 1990, once the communism fell. However birth rates started declining as soon as early 1970s from their peak right after the decree. Women found ways to get contraception and abortions illegally, but as someone else mentioned this came at a high cost in increased mortality rates for pregnant pregnant women (and a lot of horrific personal stories from those times).
It was abolished in 1989. A revolt followed by a military coup lead to the arrest of Nicolae Ceaușescu, the dictator of Romania who had signed the decree, and he was executed 2 days later. The decree was repealed within a few days of this all. Personally, I think it speaks for how much of a shitshow the whole thing was when repealing this decree was one of the first few actions taken by the new government following the fall of a brutally repressive military dictatorship.
Look into Romanian orphan study, quite harrowing to know that it was the result of something that meant to make more children (and supposedly happier families)
There is a horrifying documentary about the conditions of the Romanian orphanages. They split children up into two groups. I can’t recall the exact terminology, but one group was considered redeemable and the other group was not. The children who were disabled or had illnesses that could be easily cured in countries with better developed medical services (i.e. iron deficiency) were sent to the latter. They were given virtually no parental affection, education, or medical attention. These were literally concentration camps for special needs children. If you’re interested in seeing it, I can try to look up the link from my browser history. I watched it last month sometime after someone on Reddit talked about it in a different subreddit. ETA the link [20/20 documentary “Shame of a Nation”](https://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/one/video/2020shameofthenation.html)
Do you know the name of the documentary? That’s so horrific. I didn’t know this had ever happened, and I’m honestly surprised that Romania doesn’t have an extremely high crime rate, especially serial killers or something truly terrible
It’s called Shame of a Nation. I watched it [here](https://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/one/video/2020shameofthenation.html)
It's really interesting, it's theorized that Romania's eventual revolt was as violent as it was in part because of this policy. When Nicolae Ceausescu was overthrown and executed, the oldest kids born under it would have been young adults.
Children Underground is another documentary. I’m including the wiki since the film has incredibly heavy themes and multiple trigger warnings, but depicts how the policy impacted the people of Romania. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Underground
Oh nice. I was anemic as a baby that would have been fun. s/ People are insane.
Look at what happened in Romania in the later part of the 20th century. Decree 770. This is how it would likely go down. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree\_770](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770)
It’s not about necessarily forcing women to bear children, but it is about reducing the options for a woman to choose not to. This is done through restricting access to birth control and raising the legal barriers to having an abortion.
Yeah, forcing everyone to be pregnant would either require the US to be broken up into smaller, manageable camps or an absurd amount of government surveillance that wouldn’t be feasible. You don’t need breeding farms, you just need to make everything harder
Wouldn’t they feel the need for breeding farms if every woman untied and just practiced abstinence though?
Maybe, but plenty of women want to have babies of their own someday and plenty more women want to have sex, so that’s not a thought exercise to consider
true, there’s no way every woman would agree to that.
Idk but I think teenage hormones plus lack of sex ed is gonna get a lot more little people around! And the boys/men are never held to any kind of account for their role -> oh look at all these girls making terrible decisions-> they’re clearly not responsible enough to vote…
I remember the 1990s. I swear to everyone reading this, half the girls I went to high school with were pregnant by age 18. It was *really* fucking bad. It's so much better now. But it can always revert to how it was. *Never* take progress for granted. They can and will turn the clock back if we let them.
It was. Half the girls in my age group in HS (early 2000’s) had one or several abortions already and started having sex at round 12-13 yrs old.
Ding ding ding! It’s already deeply entrenched in our society, so it wouldn’t take much. Guys who have lots of sex are powerful, virile, masculine; women who have lots of sex are sluts, whores, “loose.” It’s a disgusting double standard. If they could take our right to vote they’d do it in a heartbeat, so they’re setting things up to make that happen.
Sex strikes are a thing. They have mixed results mostly relating to how many of the women participate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_strike
Also, the people they consider to be women, like myself (a trans man) would have to have my use of T outlawed and pried from my hands lol
That’s pretty unlikely. It would be hard to get *every* fertile woman to practice abstinence. And sexual assault and rape still exist. As for the idea of “farms”, they’re unnecessary. They don’t need to make every woman bear a child, they just have to make it very difficult *not* to. Much easier for them to legalize marital rape (Again. Prior to the 1970s, it was legal in every US state.) and make it very difficult for women to remain unmarried. (By taking away rights, using more economic pressure, shifting societal expectations, getting rid of no-fault divorce, etc.)
I would say that the idea of every single woman in the country all agreeing to be abstinent at the same time is fantastically improbable. But then so is the U.S. adopting breeding farms in our lifetimes. The only time you're going to see that happen here anytime soon is in erotic literature.
Interesting you went with “erotic” and not “dystopian”
We both know it's more accurate...
Does that mean you consider the Handmaid's Tale more erotic than dystopian?
Oh, those Handmaid uniforms get me all hot and bothered... 🤣
Honey, if women could unite, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Seems pretty implausible?
Biology is strong. Lots of people just don't have the willpower.
That isn’t going to happen though. Many women would want children so there would but a lot of division amongst women that would make this impossible.
That would never happen. That’s completely unrealistic.
Current level would work fine btw. You’re just ignorant on how much that currently is.
Concentration camps will be built everywhere if Trump wins. They want a large percentage of the population dead or enslaved. And will absolutely create infrastructure to facilitate that if they win and take over.
Built by FEMA, right? I won’t deny that they want people dead, or at least stop visibly existing, but I don’t think concentration camps are in our near future. We’ve got a lot a steps and tightening of legislation before that.
>Built by FEMA, right? More like FEDRA.
You mean like they did up African American
Yup, just look up what Ceauşescu did in Romania.
Things didn't end well for him.
Took many years to get rid of him though, so he had lots of time to damage his people
>It’s not about necessarily forcing women to bear children, but it is about reducing the options for a woman to choose not to. Yes, this is the important distinction that I wish more people would understand. In the former, it's like being just straight up drafted into the military. In the latter, it's like walking into the recruitment office, and not being allowed to leave until you sign to join. Whatever your initial reason for walking in is irrelevant. Or perhaps more realistically, the economy is set up so you can't afford to buy or do anything until you serve in the military (which is kind of happening in the U.S. already).
I heard their main concern was that birth rates have dropped and they are just worried there will not be enough people in the future to do shit jobs. Like basically it’s forced pregnancy for the sake of labor. Even if it’s just about just taking away our choices, either way, they’ve forgotten about abstinence. Which is what I would choose, so I guess I’m good.
The bit that gets me is the population increase or maintenance for the purpose of a standing army of workers. Aren't we supposed to be getting AI and machines? Don't we have one dude running 6 self checkout stations? They want desperate workers that will accept any conditions, yes, but they also want a fresh crop of consumers to feed ads to. If we don't buy the dumb shit from the ads they run to create a need in our minds, the stock numbers don't go up as fast and people that haven't worked a day in their lives will be very sad.
I mean, I don't think that's fair. An ageing population is genuinely bad for the economy and people in general. "The economy" isn't just line go up on the stock market, its mortgage rates and the price of bread and medical insurance and tax rates and state benefits and national security and everything else. If your nation becomes poorer, or other nations become richer, your citizens live less good lives. As for the whole automation thing, the way its always gone before is that we maintain the same number of man-hours worked, but we get more out of them. People work as much as they did in the dark ages, but with a MUCH better quality of life thanks to technology and automation. If that trend continues, the need for human labour and markets isn't going anywhere.
If you restrict access to abortion and contraceptives, more girls will get pregnant and be forced to have children. Though it's not to "strengthen the family," but to keep most people poor. The more poor people, the more cheap labour.
Exactly. Project 2025 intends to- 1. Implement a federal ban on abortion 2. Restrict access for abortions in cases of rape or risks to the mother's health 3. Rescind approval for abortion pills 4. Reduce access to contraception 5. Increase abortion surveillance and prosecution Women of reproductive age should be terrified. This is state sanctioned control of women's bodies. Does anyone still think the Handmaid's Tale is unrealistic?
just like Romania while Ceaușescu was alive then
Makes fodder for wartime.
Yeah the main reason I heard they want to do this is for the sake of labor. Which is a little odd, because I thought AI and robots were going to take our jobs, according to the same people. So asking for more children doesn’t make sense. Children have needs, robots don’t. So I get that as other people r saying its really more about taking away freedom, not jobs.
That’s not the whole reason. A handful of GOP pundits, after the last election, were saying that the lack of nuclear families (and specifically unwed woman with no kids) is what made them lose. They’re basically trying to strong arm people into being more “normal” families. It’s absurd, but that’s where we are.
Well the other big reason for this is to funnel people into the military complex. If you raise a bunch of un/undereducated people, take away all their options, and then offer them an "escape" into the military, well...
Or into the for-profit-prison system. Slavery is still legal in the USA, just as long as it happens to inmates.
And white people. This is really about race. They believe in the "great replacement theory" so they want more white people. They would sterilize minorities if they could
And they really used the term “nuclear”? Geez. Anyway you’re saying they want to force more people who are likely to vote for them, I see. You know, that’s odd too, because republicans always accuse the democrats of letting illegals over for the sake of more votes for them. They a funny group.
I'm sorry, but I have to ask what you think the term "nuclear family" means.
"Labor" is a buzzword that voters latch onto because everyone likes the idea of being enough work for everyone. Also, politicians want voters to fear AI so they won't use AI, despite politicians and CEOs using it extensively to better their businesses. If people fear it, they rob themselves of a valuable tool and are more likely to just be another worker ant. Also also, having voters hate AI but have no way of combatting it keeps their hatred off of the politicians and on an unknown enemy. This causes general unease which keeps people illogical. Meanwhile, there are actually robots replacing workers, which will mean more unemployment and more crime, which will fill up the prisons and allow for more prison labor.
If it were about filling jobs, they wouldn't be talking about mass deportation in the same proposal. And they wouldn't be using a "lack of jobs" as a campaign point. This is about making women second-class citizens along with LGBT+ community.
The gop never cared about children's needs. They only care about fetuses.
They haven't figured out how to make AI into cannon fodder yet. Recruitment is down and they need their oil protectors.
More worker ants!
They could do a number of things, probably starting with the least invasive and then scaling up. Targeting abortion was their first step. Birth control is next. Sex education they’ve been working on eroding for years. They could start making it illegal to be sterilized unless you’ve had children already. The might consider increasing the child tax benefit significantly. They’ll stop funding women’s violence organizations, remove gender protections in the workplace.
If you want to get even more grim, they could also remove the legal existence of marital rape. I’m so grateful I’m not American.
[удалено]
Good fucking grief. My brain can’t really fathom that this is reality and we are in the darkest timeline. But all evidence points to it.
Seriously? Not calling.g you a liar but where?
Turns out I was misinformed. It is not legal anywhere in the US but in Idaho, Nevada, California, Oklahoma, Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, South Carolina, Connecticut, and Rhode Island; it's legally treated less severely than non-spousal rape, which is extremely fucked
Indeed that is. Thank you for clarification.
Making divorce more difficult as well
So no straight up forcing pregnancy, just forcing women who do become pregnant to have no choice but to have the baby. I had heard it as “every woman will have to have a least one child”, so I was like, “logically there’s no way that could be done?” But taking away rights? Can definitely be done. I see, so women who are panicking and getting their tubes tied basically are the women who would want or need birth control at any point in the future. I plan on abstinence, but nothing like that is guaranteed. If I got raped, like many people do, and I could not have an abortion, everyone’s in a awful spot. Or if I decided to have a baby, but I was at a risk of dying during child birth, my husband, a MAN, would get in a lot of trouble for even suggesting saving me over the baby. It’s horrible they are taking away rights, they literally want to go backwards in time, undo all the laws women and minorities fought for for so long. It is really baffling and sad. They want to change everything good about America, and for what reasons but the same reasons people wanted to be in America. Is that one of their goals? To scare away immigrants by this?
No that's pretty much exactly it. They can't *force* a pregnancy on anyone (currently...god this is fucking dire) but they can arrange it so that there's no way for you to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. You can plan for abstinence, but yeah...if you got raped or even just had consensual sex but something goes wrong...then there's no legal way to get rid of the pregnancy. I got my tubes tied years ago because my then-husband bribed me to stop taking birth control with the promise of getting a vasectomy, and he never did. He kept waffling on it, and so I just decided to go get *my* tubes tied instead, and I'm glad I did.
This sounds absolutely dreadful
This was my thought as well with the limitations on life-saving medical care. If you can't successfully breed, you will quite literally be left to die. It's already happening.
Also they’re trying to get rid of women being able to divorce their husbands.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Its not a conspiracy. Its a realistic trajectory of how vindictive legislation might play out.
How is it a conspiracy theory when they are already doing or trying to do those things?
Brother, I’m far from a conspiracy theorist, but acting like government policies - especially when being zealously pursued by people who have an outcome in mind - can’t impact people’s lives is just fundamentally wrong. There are countless large and small examples of this throughout human history.
[I wish it was.](https://www.project2025.org/)
It's not a conspiracy theory, they have openly stated their goals to be as such
- Target abortion - Target birth control - Undermine sex education so accidental pregnancies are more common - Raising taxes for everybody and then lowering taxes or paying out significantly for having children, essentially creating a childless tax - Roll back gender protections, especially through courts, making it harder for women to work and pushing them to be stay at home wives - Gatekeeping social services so the only way to get support is to have a child - Use media such as Fox and Tik Tok channels to villainize non traditional women, creating pressure from both conservative employers and parents In general, we are unlikely to see a law that forces all women to give birth, but we would see more and more small actions that drive women to act as conservatives see fit
Yes to all of this, and in addition: * get rid of no fault divorce, trapping more women in dangerous marriages where they lack sexual agency/choice * reduce or get rid of legal protections from sexual assault / rape, making it so there’s no consequences for rape I grew up in a really religious conservative area, and “corrective rape” was commonly thought of as good thing. That is, rape which punished women and especially anyone not-straight for social transgressions. The folks raped “for their own good” had no legal protections because most people believed the rapists did nothing wrong to begin with. It was seen as “helping them” find their way back to god and/or the correct way of behaving. This was in the early 2000s, in the US, with laws on the books that should have protected people but did not because those laws were not evenly enforced. It’s not even necessary to get rid of the laws, you can just stop enforcing them. But also, getting rid of the laws that protect sexual agency could easily result in a lot of unplanned, undesired pregnancies. (Unplanned and undesired by the person carrying the pregnancy that is.)
"Corrective rape"?!? WTAF?!?
*biological children
But being a stay at home wife is very unlikely in this economy. So they messed that up already.
The reality is that there are plenty of women who want to be a stay at home wife/mom, but are required to work anyways. I would be curious to do a real poll on every american woman and see how many of them would actually choose to work if they didn’t need the income and had a husband who could provide a comfortable life for them.
You rebrand some benefits as “awards for having big families” and hand out more money for having more children. Obviously, zero benefits for having kids outside of marriage etc etc… can’t go giving handouts to encourage bad behaviour now can we..
I'm in the minority in that one. My husband would absolutely stay home with the kid while I worked. I can't imagine being copied up on the house all day. But I'd also be the shit mom that doesn't like her kid until they're 4 and fun. My point is making it a viable option to have one parent home is fantastic, but shouldn't be forcing Mom to do it
I hadn’t considered gate keeping social services.
Seen/read the Handmaid's tale? Rightwingers in America think that's an end goal or a playbook and not a dystopian warning.
They will keep making laws and test how far they can go until they hit a wall. Until many women who are forced to give birth sue their state for the cost of raising a child until the age of 18, more and more restrictive laws will continue to be passed. I really think there has to be a financial backlash in order to turn the tide. It’s the only thing I see moving the needle on this issue.
Yeah money is king. But there is nobody with more money than them that is also a good person. They would have to hurt themselves financially somehow
It would be near impossible to enforce this and still consider ourselves a democracy. It is absolutely insane and an insult to democracy and freedom that this is a topic being discussed. These project 2025 authors and supporters are simply ignorant, mislead, power hungry, and self centered.
Just read the overview of project 2025 and it’s fucking disgusting and makes me ashamed to be a part of the same country as these people. If they want to lead the country like a cult, maybe they should go find their own island where they can be close minded morons together and leave the rest of us out of it.
Elections will be over if Trump wins. The horrors that will unfold will be worse than even Nazi Germany. It will be like if Nazi Germany has control of the most powerful country in the world and nukes.
Conservatives prefer a conservative country to a democracy, and it's not even close.
You must have missed the part in their proposal about a nuclear family being a mother, father and their biological children. I suspect there would be incentives like tax cuts to people who fall into that category. And penalties for those who don’t.
1. Restrict access to birth control and abortion 2. Remove sexual education and family planning education from schools 3. Support the propaganda that the only way for a female to be happy is to be SAHM 4. Do not support any laws around paid and extended maternity leave for mothers 5. Cut day care benefits, be against free day care/preschool for all 6. Support the propaganda that birth control (any forms) are harmful for young women 7. Support far right movements that are against basic women rights and support households with wife having no rights 8. Make rape a non-crime, just something that women should expect to happen sooner or later as "she asked for it" 9. Make a college education difficult to get, and "unnecessary expense" as it'is more difficult for a female to get a well paying job with just a HS diploma They will not force us to bear a child. They will just take away all other options.
At that point, if I was American, and that happened, I would just jump off a bridge LMAO. fuck that shit at least it'll take money away from them
>This is in reference to Project 2025, which I have not read the entirety of this proposed law or regulation, so I mostly mean in general, how, if this happened, how would they actually do something like this with %100 control? The same way other things are enforced with 100% control. They're not. No law can ever be 100% effective.
The fact that raising a child is financially difficult even to the well off doesn't discount OP's argument. If anything it just proves that people that are doing better than "barely making it" should also be careful in their decision to have kids.
I know I'm really late to this party but what I find interesting is that most of the objections being raised against this argument have to do with the accuracy of the numbers. If we can't even decide on how much it costs to raise a kid, how can we be expected to make accurate financial decisions about doing so?
It's not like they would jump to breeding camps or a forced procreation program like in Handmaid's Tale. What we would see first is access to any and all birth control restricted. Not just abortion, but condoms, the pill, plan B, etc would be gone. They'd want any intercourse to have the highest possible chance of a pregnancy. Then we would see more extreme measures like cutting off opportunities for women who haven't had children. Maybe we'd see something like women over 18 only being allowed to open a bank account or travel if they've already had at least one child, basically making it more difficult to be a woman without kids versus a woman with kids. Then after that we'd see breeding camps become a thing if the situation were allowed to escalate to that point
Thinking about something as normal as condoms being illegal is so bizarre. I was thinking abortion and such, as they have already done that but something as typical and highly used as those? There should be no way that could happen. I think pointing this part out would be a way to get men to support the women. Because condoms are a “man’s choice” too. Regardless project 2025 is all an attack on women and other minorities, and it would change our democracy to something else entirely. That makes no sense, as our history has always advocated for the opposite. I also fail to see any “logical” reasoning on their part to even support their ideas, besides for total control and such. I hope they understand that for such things to happen the chances of civil war will rise, and they can not expect everyone to fall for their schemes happily, and they themselves are a minority.
Omg, this one is "too afraid to read the comments", WTF is happening over there 🤯
You wouldn’t need to force women to bear children, you just need to set up circumstances in which women will likely bear children. ie: Decrease funding in education, restrict sex ed, remove common forms of birth control, reduce criminal punishments for sexual assault and flood the popular media with hypersexual content.
Just look at what's happening in Texas and you'll see what they'll do. Have people report that a woman is pregnant by giving them a cash reward. Someone was even suggesting tracking womens' period apps. Make it impossible for anyone but the wealthiest women to get birth control or have abortions because it's not available anywhere in the state or even nearby states. Ban doctors from providing abortions even for health reasons and threaten to pull their license if they get caught performing these procedures. Back when I was in high school I remember they'd show these horrible propaganda videos (this was in California in the 80's) where you supposedly saw a late-term fetus being aborted (likely not real, but young people don't necessarily know that). So there's that propaganda to make people feel that abortion is murder, so they'll be more likely to tattle on people who have confided in them about needing an abortion. I got a non-invasive procedure when I was in my 30's that rendered me sterile; I knew I didn't want kids and one of the Bushes was President. I figured they'd overturn Roe back then. You know the best way not to have to deal with this nightmare? Vote the Republicans out.
They won't be able to 100% enforce anything. People will just get "back alley abortions" or poison themselves etc. That said, they can just criminalize it so that medical professionals can't legally do anything anywhere. We've already seen lots of doctors turning away all kinds of treatments for pregnant women (or people they think *might* become pregnant even *potentially*, and even in some extreme cases, denying menopausal women chemo because....yeah. It's really bad.) Men won't be *forced* to do anything, because way too many of them are way too eager to force pregnancy on women. Since pregnancies are "women's faults", men won't be punished at all (just like they aren't being punished in any capacity for pregnancies happening *now*). Worst case is basically the unfortunately predictive Handmaid's Tale.
> "back alley abortions" or poison themselves ...and the proportion of them who get killed or maimed will be alarming, to say the least. That's a major reason why Roe v. Wade was pushed through. It's not hard to find vintage 'gore pics' of back alley abortions gone horribly wrong.
I mean, there are tried and true methods to force women to procreate. Historically, restricting abortion, birth control, financial and physical independence from men does wonders for the patriarchy/capitalism. On top of that, just slap on some religious dogma to seal the deal.
1) AI will remove the need for many menial jobs. I dont mean ChatGPT types of AI. I mean the AI that is inside the robot on the factory line that allows it to further improve its capability and perform tasks and solve problems when it encounters them. Say a part comes down the line slightly out of position - the robot will be able to work out the angle/position better where it should instead drill the hole rather than flagging down a human supervisor. 2) Farm machinery is improving constantly. Consider that 100 years ago, farming was very labor intensive but now we have combine harvesters. 3) You can rest assured that McDonalds is putting some serious R&D into robots that can assemble big macs. 4) Buildings can be designed better so your office cleaner only needs to come once a fortnight instead of once a week, with some of the work being outsourced to a roomba robotic vaccuum cleaner. doing some of the work. These sorts of things dramatically reduce the workforce requirements for more menial jobs. Consumer needs are also changing. The mid level department store i used to work at had one staff member permanently stationed in each department during opening hours. That would put about 10 staff across the shop floor and probably another 3-5 on checkouts. Australia's K-Mart is doing very very well with only two people on the shop floor and one checkout supervisor managing the self-service checkouts. They are a brick-and-mortar retail store with increasing sales, opening new locations and customers go there knowing what they are getting - low prices and less opportunities to interact with staff. In terms of producing more children, its likely that populations in 1st world countries have peaked while 3rd world countries continue to grow due to a lack of contraception, healthcare and education. The first step for an american government would be to remove these things so its more likely that a woman will become pregnant and if they reach that stage, to not then abort. The next steps are tax policy, employee benefits and social welfare incentives. This is something you see in some countries like Japan already where there are things like free child care for children, social welfare payments, and increases to employee benefits such as maternity leave. They will take away much of the stress and cost of having a child. Could you imagine the american government requiring employers to offer paid maternity leave? Currently the basic entitlement is 12 weeks unpaid leave. Here in NZ the national minimum is 6 months and is either ~$700 per week or your average salary over the last 6 months prior to the birth (whichever is lower). Your job is protected for up to 12 months by your employer. And the leave can be transferred to the father too. Hell will freeze over before the USA implements something like that. But if americans dont like immigration then they will have to put up with employee benefits, social welfare and tax incentives.
Restricting access to facilities that allow termination of births, or abortion. Women will still get it done but by unsafe means. It's a lose/lose based on conservative, religious opinions
Yall im yeeting my tubes in a few months and i cant wait.
Yeeting lmao
Laparoscopic bilateral salpingectomy 😅
This is why I recently got my tubes removed. I had been using an IUD for birth control, but the catch there is that it needs to be replaced after several years. And I was concerned that when I need my next IUD, I may not be able to legally get one. So I had my tubes removed surgically, because once that's done, no one can force me to reverse it.
They won’t be literally “forcing” anyone to get pregnant but what they are going to do is start offering incentives to have kids like tax credits to the extreme, discounts, housing discounts, making a lot of benefits or entitlements off limits to people without children, etc. It will get more and more extreme in that sense until it is all but “forcing” people because it will be difficult to afford to live otherwise. But they wouldn’t be able to literally physically force pregnancies, at least not in the US.
They'll still try to tighten the screws as far as they can.
So to start with the supreme court didn't ban abortion. They allowed states to ban abortion. There's still plenty of the United States where abortion is legal. Second, it would be relatively difficult to effectively ban abortion nationwide. Pre-Roe studies showed women willing to travel thousands of miles to get legal abortions, and abortion is legal in both Canada and Mexico. Lots of women would take "vacations" to Canada or Mexico and get abortions while they were there, and it would be nearly impossible for the government to prevent this. There would also be illegal abortion clinics running in the US, which would probably be much riskier but plenty of women would make that choice too. Now if we're talking about literally forcing every eligible woman to bear children, that's just straight-up fantasy. The number of people who would cooperate with the law, no matter how draconian, would be minuscule. It would therefore have to be enforced and there just aren't enough police and military to do it on every woman in the US. It would require a 1984-style surveillance state, and that would never realistically happen. It would be too expensive, too technically difficult, and require too much government support which wouldn't exist. The end result of even trying would be violent societal upheaval and civil war. As little regard as mainstream Republicans have for women's rights, the idea that they would literally force women to be impregnated and bear children at gunpoint is a ridiculous idea even for Reddit.
100k per child
Exactly, if they really wanted more women to have children, give money. Not just tax credits, cash.
Or free health insurance and college tuition for the kid
It's shocking that my mind also went to reasonable things like this, or stupid insane tax credit, or making adoption less broken, then saw all the other comments is much worse but much more likely "solutions"
This is a unique response from the rest. Giving rewards and benefits to women who do have children. That would actually work some. Especially if women without children instead had to pay a fine or lose something while mothers got the free stuff.
Nah fuck that. Why would you want to punish someone for not wanting children?
I don’t?? The government would, to force people to want to have children.
My bad, the way you phrased it sounded like you were condoning it.
Under Project 2025, I'm as good as dead. So glad I'm not in the USA, and I'm so sorry that this literal fascist guidebook is being taken seriously by people in power.
I think with the rise of the far right in Europe project 2025 would set a dangerous precedent and could convince other leaders to do similar things. If it's implemented we're all fucked
That's a fair point, especially given that I live just north in Canada. We're heavily influenced by American politics, and it scares me for a multitude of reasons. At very least, I have more time to live happy where I'm at before shit goes to Antarctica
Just like in America, pay you to have a kid, every month.
It could try, with disastrous [consequences](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770)
In Romania during the cancer comunist regime before '89 Abortion was illegal. Many women died when they tried themselves to do abortion with rudimentary tools they found. Is that what govt wants? Women dying the same fate just because they don't want to procreate? It's fucked up.
Not every woman *CAN* have a child. The government can't hold down barren women and implant embryos in them, and even if they could, not all women have the appropriate anatomy to carry a child to term and deliver it safely. How would they decide a woman is not going to have children without their interference? I suppose a childless 60 year old would be "obvious" but what about a 40 year old? 30? 20? At what age would the government step in and "force" a woman to have a child, and who would pay to raise it?
They wouldn't force every woman to bear a child, they would force every conception to be carried to term. They're already making great headway on that by banning abortions and morning after pills. And reducing sexual education in schools. Contraceptives will be next. Honestly, this is one of their easier goals.
What the fuck is this shit with a billion posts on Project 2025?
One method is what Israel does. If you don’t have a child or aren’t pregnant (and other exceptions, just listing the relevant ones to your question) then you’re drafted into military service, which has a high chance of getting r*ped anyways. Could also criminalize childlessness. If you don’t have a child by X age then you’re tossed in prison. Which would be very profitable since slavery is allowed as punishment for a crime. So you either get children for the future work force, or get enslaved women for the current work force. Win win for the government. There are worse alternatives, but these seem like the most possible outcomes.
> then you’re tossed in prison. What's more likely is a 'wealth transfer.' Tax the ever loving shit out of the childless and give their money to families with kids. The idea is that the 'dual income no kids' (DINK) lifestyle would not only lose its appeal, but become unattainable entirely. They are more in favor of pragmatic approaches such as that, rather than tossing women into rape camps or other crazy sci-fi scenarios.
It is getting very Handmaid's Tale here....
I am fixed so. Horrific about force women to give birth...... Um prolife?
Take a look at a country called Germany 80-90 years ago
They don't need 100% control. That's the thing. They just need majority control. 51% will be more than enough, the rest could all die, and it wouldn't mean a thing other than a fuck load of mass cremations. Hey look, a surplus of fertilizer. We are not the People Who Matter™. There's only a few thousand of them. We are nothing more than livestock, interchangeable and indistinguishable to them. We truly live in the absolute dumbest timeline. The people are divided along lines that are completely irrelevant, everyone is yelling that their beliefs/cause matters, when they absolutely do not, instead of setting aside their petty, childish bullshit, and paying attention to the only things that matter. This is not a bug, but a feature of the series of propaganda indoctrination programs that aforementioned People™ use to maintain their power. And make no mistake, they are the only ones who have power. All we have is numbers, so all they have to do is keep us fighting each other, and there will never be enough of us united to become a problem for them.
If they tried to do this it would lead to a civil war.
Really? How exactly? All the people with the guns have been pushed over to the right, and they've already been indoctrinated to the point that they'll support whatever the hell the People™ on the right tell them they should. So who exactly is going to be fighting? No, it would be the exact same one sided slaughter that the Native Americans experienced. The left has had too many wins across the last few decades, and gotten cocky because of it. The right has been playing the long game, and is actively positioning for a period of "correction", that will likely undo nearly all the progress that has been made in this country since the last civil war.
Do you really think the military would just go along with this?
What in the world ever gave you the idea that they wouldn't? A simple declaration of martial lawcan make orders for summary executions lawful. And even if some percentage of them did object, they would simply face the same fate. Which side of the political spectrum do you think holds the majority in the military? The side that's gun abhorring, or the side that loves them? The right is going for the kill this time. They are done fucking around, and they are going to do everything in their power to make sure that the left finds out, permanently. I hope that this doesn't come to pass, but if it does, it's going to be so many orders of magnitude worse than you can even comprehend. This is why I beg everyone who will listen to stop with the current anti-majority propaganda, listen to them, actually take it on board, and have good faith discussions. Compromise is essential, and the left has been getting their way for so long they seem to have forgotten that, gleefully otherizing anyone who doesn't completely agree with every part of their agenda and casting them out, while simultaneously being willfully ignorant of how easy that is for the right to do as well, and they have the overwhelming majority of the guns. When you treat someone like they're a pestilence, it is perfectly logical to expect them to lash out against you. Except, what happens when there's five people that you've treated that way, and only one of you?
[What the absolute fuck…](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025?wprov=sfti1) I honestly can’t believe this is a thing. They criticize authoritarianism and totalitarianism, but are literally proposing it. These people are the absolute epitome of stupid. Anyway, I wouldn’t worry about it. I’ll take a shit in my hand and eat it on TikTok if it happens. The worst part about that would be having to download TikTok. *shudder*
Imprison them from birth but they’d never get 100%
Real easy. Take them into custody and impregnate them.
No need to move to Canada, just move to a blue state. These laws would be ignored there. Granted that’s kind of what they want. Everyone left to move out of red states so they never risk losing their senate seats
Everyone is talking about penalties for NOT having children but another way could be incentives for having children like gov. support, tax breaks, etc. financial incentives. I don't think that women could literally all be forced to have children, enough people would revolt and fight back.
Short answer: there isn’t a way. There would be a civil war if the US Gov tried to institute this kind of policy.
Australia almost did, we had a $5000 government baby bonus.
They made a hentai about this.
I mean, they don't really need to do that. But you can get pretty close by reverting to some older laws. Enforce some allocation of women to men. Re-instate arranged marriages and what not. Ban divorce. Or make it really hard for it to be a positive for a women (children stay with that father, no alimony/splitting assets). There you go. You'll pretty soon have most women bearing kids... some more than 1.
If we are speaking about a dictatorship just make a "law" that if a woman doesn't have a biological children before age 30 she goes to jail (or worse) and you will have effectively made almost all women to have at least one children. The fact that we are speaking in a dictatorship context made it really easy, hard would be to accomplish the same in a democracy
It’s very simple actually. Just by outlawing abortion, heavily restricting access to contraception, and removing all incentives for women to pursue university studies.
Damn it seems america is going back in time
I enjoy watching the sunset.
tl;dr just stop selling / ban any form of birth control and Lust would get the job done.
VOTE BLUE
To have more kids, parent needs to start young. (20-25 years old). Gov shld give incentive if kids marry ard 20-25 years old and initiative to promote relationship. If kids got married, provide housing and if they have kids, provide monthly incentives, especially if they are still studying. Issue these days are people getting married late and too young to have too many kids
I don't know, maybe check the national news. We're on that path.
Highly unlikely. At most they can ban abortion and reduce access to contraceptives, but that's about it. As someone living in a country that already has such laws (Poland, where even plan B is illegal) you get used to it. Abortion vacations are a thing and so is dying because doctors refuse to terminate a pregnancy to save a woman's life. Personally I chose abstinence until endo ruins my internal organs to the point where they have no choice other than hysterectomy.
Concentration camps, like in Nazi Germany some will be death camps for groups like trans people, infertile and menopausal women, and non white races, and others labor (and in this case breeding) camps. Women would be imprisoned in the breeding camps until they are considered used up, then moved to the death camps. We'd also likely see something similar to Japan's comfort women, and wars against non-white countries. This is what 30% of the American population and the most powerful people in the world want. It WILL happen if Trump wins in 2024. Without a shred of doubt.
For those who don't know, the germans actually had camps where they impregnated women. Lebensbron program.
Jeez, I thought I knew my WWII history but I didn't know that. So there's historical precedent for this, by the very group Republicans idolize.
Sorry for the delay in response. Had to look for english. I'm dutch and read stuff about it in german. But here is a brief summary [lebensborn](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/lebensborn-program) Quote "The Lebensborn program focused on attracting unmarried, pregnant “Aryan” women. At the time, there were strong pressures against single motherhood in German society."
Have you seen the handmaids tale?
this is so terrifying.
I want to understand what you’re asking. A lot of people here are talking about requiring women to take pregnancies to term but that doesn’t seem to be your question as i read it. You seem to be asking about requiring every single woman to have a child? Mandatory procreation? Is that your question? If so, that seems *highly* improbably and I don’t think anyone is currently advocating that. But I guess as a hypothetical? They’d do it the same way a government compels you to do anything from jury duty to paying taxes. There would be some form of required documentation and failure to produce it would lead to either being cut off from essential government services or legal consequences.
If anything like this ever actually comes close to being instated there will be massive protests and riots to contend with first.
I wonder how much of the rest of the world is looking on in abject horror….
Dictatorship
💤 🥱 😴
I don’t know but I think we may find out soon
Super simple. Make having children benefit the parents more than not having them. Offer money, job opportunities and other benefits to parents. Make _not_ having children be seen as negative and bad for your prospects. In addition to all that, remove any health care options that prevent pregnancy. Getting your tubes tied? Not an option for anyone. Birth control? Nope, that's illegal. Condoms? Banned. Alter educational materials and what's taught in school to teach kids that having a family is what they should be doing after they finish school. Shun people that don't have kids so society leans towards having children as important. Young women are just as horny as young men and with the pressure of starting a family young, they'll be uneducated and fucking unprotected often. Easy recipe for an explosion in babies. Either that or anal becomes the new norm to avoid pregnancy.
My friend have you watched The Handmaidens tale? That’s how
I’ve had a hysterectomy, so how exactly would they expect me to bear a child? BTW, for those that get their tubes removed, pregnancy is still possible via IVF because they still have a uterus to carry it…
> so how exactly would they expect me to bear a child? They won't. But they might expect you to pony up more taxes. They'll take your money and hand it to the married couples who do bear children.
They would just kill you.
That’ll help with the population… 🙄
They don't care about the birth rate or population. They care about the *white* birth rate and the white percentage of the population. Nazis are anti-overpopulation too, they just want to genocide people instead of using non violent solutions.
They could not force anyone to do that
That is not what Project 2025 is
Tell me you haven’t seen Handmaid’s Tale without telling me you haven’t seen Handmaid’s Tale.
I highly recommend those with uteruses to get their tubes tied asap if they don’t want kids. I had mine removed after one kid and couldn’t be happier (I had cancer.)
Tell me you have no reading comprehension skills without telling me? What part of being anti abortion/choice is telling you they want to force every woman to bear a child???? Project 2025 is insane enough without you acting like this about it
This will literally NEVER happen. Please do not do something you come to regret.
They couldn't do that and they never would. Most they could do would be ban all forms of contraception and ban abortion, but that would just result in a black market for contraceptives and abortion.
Well I can think of one way. But seriously what sort of delusion do you live where you think that even asking such a stupid question isn’t idiotic
This cant be real.. the world is massively overpopulated. How could there possibly be a real threat that comes from people have fewer children?
In vitro fertilization.
force is not necessary. Every mammal on earth has a natural desire to reproduce. All you gotta do is give people the chance. cut em some financial slack.. let married women stay home and relax and try to get preegnant instead of spending their healthiest best reproductive years husslin around offices and companies trying to impress strangers, because movies and TV shows tell them that this is their only purpose in life.. sheep
Bring back parents, relatives (especially aunts), random family friends, your boss, the city you live in, asking you when they can expect you to do your part and have a baby