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?

Don't know if anyone has mentioned Romania under caecescu?

Not the best example as women didn't have the chance to say no. But yes, he needed workers and an army so alongside some incentives that became pretty pointless towards the end he took full control of women's reproductive rights.

The consequences of abortions being made illegal have been wide spread, horrific and it affect many people even now.

We know it can happen, because it has happened.

as a decreasing pool of working adults
except it wouldnt decrease so much as implode, fall off a cliff etc

vettyalruken it isn't so much the direct replies to the OP that I find weird but some of the incidental comments on why women actually do have children. I also think that if this unlikely situation were to happen the falling birth rate would initially be seen as a good thing, later as there were fewer plebs to do the basic jobs those in power would start to encourage immigration. As it progressed further they would try to incentivise parenthood , then try to bully women into it by making life very difficult via legislation (tax, benefits, health policy etc).I think it would be rich and powerful v poor rather than men v women. I still think this scenario is unlikely though. Many people have a strong urge to have children, albeit fewer children than in past generations.

DGR - is there a good signpost for the post Black Death social reforms?

I can't think of anything specific - it's part of English history so all there. The trick is to remember who wrote the history and why.

However, to post a downer, a fact that is never tiring, is that despite the last 1,000 years of history, most (80%) of the land that William the Bastard dished out after Hastings is still in the same families. Which means that it's ownership has survived:

the anarchy;
the signing of Magna carta;
the Black Death;
the Peasants Revolt;
the wars of the roses;
the reformation;
the creation of the Union;
the civil war;
the restoration;
the rise of empire;
WW1;
WW2;
the fall of empire;
flared trousers;
deelyboppers;

When you see it written like that, you suddenly realise why the worlds despots are beating a path to Eton and the Great Universities of Cambridge and Hull

So anyone why thinks Covid is going to change much, beyond a fashion in masks, is probably a little naive. It takes more than a few tens of thousands dead to achieve anything in England.

@Paintedmaypole

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 )

But this thread is asking specifically about a scenario and the outcome of if all women on mass decided to stop procreating.

That why the replies are from slant of women choosing not to breed.

Yes 89.

I just had a skim of the page on wiki for him and I couldn't see the policy on reproduction mentioned. It's under 'Romanian orphanages'.

'Under Nicolae Ceauşescu, both abortion and contraception were forbidden. '

How interesting that fact, a MASSIVE one for women, and which had catastrophic consequences for so many children, isn't included on the main page about him and his views policies actions etc.

That sort of thing really troubles me. Is it really not worth a mention? A women's issue and therefore not of interest to anyone reading about this regime?

Sorry I mean the policy is mentioned under a page called Romanian orphanages.

Not at all under the page about caecescu. And that bothers me.

well quite. But it’s the possibilities that exercise my mind for a little light relief

Brave New World springs to mind. Babies aren't born but decanted in a laboratory.

those in power would start to encourage immigration
with no new people being made I doubt that other countries would let any people go

@Smallsteps88

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.

You’re underestimating the money spent on children by parents. Food, eating out, entertainment, clothing, trips, bigger homes, bigger cars, toys, technology etc.

Not to mention the instant loss of some jobs (midwives, nursery staff, health visitors) and the competition for jobs from women who would otherwise have been SAHM or part time in low paid work to look after children. These women would be competing against men now for the full time, high paying, professional jobs and even better- the head honcho jobs that give them more control. Political positions too. Men would not be happy about that.

I just had a skim of the page on wiki for him and I couldn't see the policy on reproduction mentioned. It's under 'Romanian orphanages'.

in a weird example of synchronicity, I caught

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000lyxz

(Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined by US talk show host Conan O'Brien and neuroscientists David Eagleman and Gina Rippon to look at our plastic, adaptable brains.)

yesterday and Romanian orphanages were mentioned, as the nurses simply didn't interact with the babies and children, and they grew up with terrible developmental problems which has helped scientists understand a lot more about the human brain in a tragically heartbreaking way.

@Heffalooomia

those in power would start to encourage immigration with no new people being made I doubt that other countries would let any people go

Or they'd get rid of "undesirables". Like Cuba did in the 70s ...

@PicsInRed

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.

I think this too. Just been watching 'Mrs America' and am sad how little we have progressed and how we seem quite happy with our reality TV, lip-fillers and dogs to worry about progressing women's lib

It would be great.

To be honest, I never thought any differently. You can't have a brain and think any other way

I really hate this divisive mentality which insists that people cannot have a credible alternative way of looking at the world from oneself, but must just be brainlessly stupid. Personally, I am quite able to see how people regard life as beginning in the womb and therefore value that life. I believe women should have access to safe abortions myself, but I can quite see this is a moral area where the rights of one life are coming into conflict with another. As such, I am able to fully respect the view of those on the other side of the argument. Instead of feeling the need to fling around unevidenced slurs like this Funny how this concern for the child ends at birth Does it? You've got peer reviewed research into the view of pro-lifers to say that all/ nearly all of them don't give a shit about born children, have you? Cos I used to be really active in animal rights, and the slur thrown against us was that we didn't give a shit about humans. Yet, I never once yet an animal rights activist who wasn't also active in human welfare or worked in a job which helped people in need. So I'm a bit dubious about self-serving slurs against the other side like that.

In plenty of countries in the world today women do not have a choice. The idea we might decide not to is entirely first world.

I’m also fascinated that researchers are noting a reduction in premature births during Covid, and are looking for causation.

That IS interesting - I'm going to have to have a google.

DG Rossetti It's possible that richer more powerful countries could try to steal people away from third world countries though.

@SchadenfreudePersonified

I’m also fascinated that researchers are noting a reduction in premature births during Covid, and are looking for causation.

That IS interesting - I'm going to have to have a google.

Agreed! Very interesting. I wonder if it’s due to work related stresses that aren’t present during covid for many mothers.

I really hate this divisive mentality which insists that people cannot have a credible alternative way of looking at the world from oneself, but must just be brainlessly stupid.

I didn't quite say that. I just judge by what people do, not what they say. By that token, I've not seen a single person who says they believe in the divine right of the unborn child do any more about it than try to bully and terrorise pregnant women (who are themselves divine children by that logic)

if anti abortionists set up hostels for unwanted babies, and devoted their own lives to bringing them up and alleviating the poverty that comes with unwanted births, then I'd have a different view.

If anti abortionists change their actions, I could change my view. Until then, it's just hypocrisy of the highest order.

And the weirdest thing is I have repeatedly ducked out of trying to have a view on abortion. Personally I'm not a massive fan, but at the end of the day it's not and will never be my body. So as far as I am concerned, it's a debate which doesn't need my input. Like so many that involve women.

@DGRossetti

I just had a skim of the page on wiki for him and I couldn't see the policy on reproduction mentioned. It's under 'Romanian orphanages'.

in a weird example of synchronicity, I caught

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000lyxz

(Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined by US talk show host Conan O'Brien and neuroscientists David Eagleman and Gina Rippon to look at our plastic, adaptable brains.)

yesterday and Romanian orphanages were mentioned, as the nurses simply didn't interact with the babies and children, and they grew up with terrible developmental problems which has helped scientists understand a lot more about the human brain in a tragically heartbreaking way.

This was/is the true horrific consequence.

Hundreds of thousands of healthy babies either dead or ending with significant mental and physical disabilities due to the conditions they grew up in. No interaction,no affection, abuse,poor nutrition, damp,mouldy ,overcrowded and smelly room, cots too small that they never left so their limbs grew crooked and so on, overworked ,understaffed and desensitised "carers".

Some died, some ended up homeless and in the sewers, some are still institutionalised now as grownups.

That's without all the traumatised,maimed and dead women that either had to give up babies or had back street abortions.

All those lives, all those children sacrificed at the altar of an egotistical and paranoid shoe maker.

Wellwash it's a thought experiment, a hypothetical.

I'm sure the women on this thread are aware that not all women in the world have access to abortion/ contraception. And know that rape is a thing.

Incentives first I think — like .

Tax breaks? I'm sure they had that in France for third children.

sad how little we have progressed and how we seem quite happy with our reality TV, lip-fillers and dogs to worry about progressing women's lib

What further progress do you think feminism needs to make? It’s taking us all our time to hold onto our existing rights.