What do you think would happen if all women just suddenly decided to stop having babies?

[FortunesFave]

Some would still be born through rape but if the entire world population of women said "No" to procreation...what would happen to the world?

I'm convinced that a large number of anti-abortionists are more concerned with controlling women than the rights of the foetus. If they were so concerned about babies they would be campaigning for better early years help and making sure no child grows up in poverty

I think that is really unfair. I think we need to stop demonising people we don't agree with. If you regard an unborn child as fully human and fully a child then of course you are going to campaign to end abortion. You don't need to campaign on every issue, that would be exhausting and impossible, for the issue you do campaign on to be genuinely held. (And you also don't know if individual anti-abortion campaigners don't work/ campaign in other areas of children's rights).

Nothing would happen for the first few years as it would be written off as a statistical blip.

Once the first year of noticeable dip in school starts happening you'll get a propaganda push akin to nazi Germang about the importance of the mother ect..

I imagine the second stage would be tax and income incentives.

You then reach a point of crossroads of where it could be about increasing the safety of maternity services and job opportunities, better childcare etc... but the truth is none of that is for the benefit of men so what will actually happen is fear tactics.

Women will have a quota of 2 children to fulfill until the population is stabilised.

There would be enough women who wanted children that it wont happen.

@ComeOnBabyPopMyBubble

At first, nothing. Eventually though, women would be taken and forced to breed.

This, however there would be no need to take them somewhere, that's for a limited fertile women scenarios. Laws would slowly come in to reduce access to contraception(like certain conditions being met, approval by husband/partner, exorbitant prices or simply no availability), abortion made illegal etc.

Kinda like now. Women (including in the UK) need a husband's consent for sterilisation and are often denied as "too young" even if 30 with 3 kids, Amercian women have limited medical cover for contraception, ditto abortion.

It's already happening.

And, yes, I absolutely agree that women would be simply forced to breed.

Why do you ask only if women stopped wanting to have babies?

How about what would happen if men decided to stop having children?
What would happen if a law was passed that every male child at the age of two had his balls cut off. The new breed of eunuchs.
To procreate both sexes need each other.

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland

There would be enough women who wanted children that it wont happen.

How much of the "want" is social engineering though? We've been engineered since Demi Moore's pregnancy shot to consider pregnancy the most glorious and beautiful outcome for a woman. Marriage and babies have been propagandised at women since the early nineties.

As far as I can see, the eighties was as good as it got for women before some decided we needed to be socially engineered back into our box. They did this in such a way that we walked willingly back into the box ourselves.

I find some of the replies a bit weird. The implication is that only men would want to reproduce 0and would treat women like a herd of cows or sex slaves to that end. Women on te other hand are seen as having no urge to reproduce and only having children to serve men I think a large proportion of women want to have children of their own volition. It also suits both men and women to limit the size of their family. Does no one enjoy being ,a mother and does everyone really prefer the time they spend at work? (I didn't )

It would start with Economic stimulus payments for how many children you have as an incentive and then move to a more aggressive approach from there.

Or as was said in the GFC “one for dad, one for mum and one for the country.”

People should have a look at the family sitcoms of the 1950s, 60s and 70s vs the late 80s 90s and today. You'll be genuinely shocked at how forward looking many of the female characters are vs today.

I remember being stunned at one very strong and (by our standards today) bolshy house wife figure who cracked her own jokes, rather than being simply the foil for men to get laughs. She was written as the archetypal lovely house wife of the day, but would be considered "a bit of a cow" if her character was on air today. 🤔

We don't realise how much WORSE things actually are for women now and how much more social control and behaviour monitoring we are subject to.

Putting aside the horrific but entirely real prospect of rape factories, everyone would have to work until they dropped, euthanasia would be legal, the world's economies would go in to recession, we'd have to centralise services...maybe co-housing would take off as all the oldies decided they didn't want to be alone, enforced Tai-chi, sudoku and Countdown would have its own channel

It's already happening.

True. The foundation is already laid, easy to build up on and justify if OP's scenario became reality.

There's already backlash towards and shaming of women that are voluntarily childless too.

A laboratory would probably work something out.

Picsinred I don't think the desire for children was socially engineered in my case. I enjoyed being with my children even when things were difficult. Being at work was sometimes satisfying, I had a professional job, but sometimes I really didn't enjoy it. You only need to follow infertility threads to see how some people long for children.

everyone would have to work until they dropped, euthanasia would be legal, the world's economies would go in to recession, we'd have to centralise services.

It wouldn't go that far. The state would intervene and laws would be made to make contraception hard to access/illegal.

In developed countries, children don't bring any financial value to the economy or provide any meaningful contribution to society...in fact, they are a drain. So, from the time this no children era starts for another 18 years, governments will save money on healthcare and education. Once that lost generation would have become adults, things would get difficult as a decreasing pool of working adults would have to subsidize the retired population. On the positive side, women could work with freedom as no childcare worries.

I think science would focus on creating humans without the need for a uterus. Possibly even eugenics. At least in developed countries.

Science progresses leaps and bounds in the face of adversity. Not always for the best, but c'est la vie.

Baby farms would pop up - low income women or refugees, vulnerable women would be promised luxurious surroundings to become a brood mare.

Men would start producing them through their belly buttons or they would lay eggs.

Well it's a theory.

@Paintedmaypole

Picsinred I don't think the desire for children was socially engineered in my case. I enjoyed being with my children even when things were difficult. Being at work was sometimes satisfying, I had a professional job, but sometimes I really didn't enjoy it. You only need to follow infertility threads to see how some people long for children.

No, but many women who are ambivalent or even simply don't want kids are pressured into it. Choosing a career and no kids was more socially acceptable in the 70s, 80s and early 90s than it is now. You only need to compare the messaging from media and entertainment from 30 or 40 years ago. It's counterintuitive to what we are taught to believe, but it's true.

Hold on. You're proposing a situation where women unilaterally decide to make humans extinct, and it's men who come out of it the bad guys?!

I know this is a big picture, Handmaid's Tale perspective but I'm a little puzzled by the notion in the UK that it's men who would want babies. Do PPs really think it's generally the men in couples pushing for procreation?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521 low birth rates have quite far reaching consequences.

I dont think women would be captured. I think that would be if something wiped out most women or made most women infertile.
I think rape would be legalised, men would be able to dictate their wifes medical care, women would lose the right to consent to marriage. Probably stop us from being allowed to work or get education to put us back in the box we were in 80 or so years ago.

@Zilla1

I know this is a big picture, Handmaid's Tale perspective but I'm a little puzzled by the notion in the UK that it's men who would want babies. Do PPs really think it's generally the men in couples pushing for procreation?

Because it would be an economic and possibility military decision, not a maternal/paternal instinct one.

I'm convinced that a large number of anti-abortionists are more concerned with controlling women than the rights of the foetus

I agree - and the impact on the planet seems to completely pass them by, too.