• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Pro/Anti Child Bearing Policies (split from "Canada don’t matter" thread)

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
11,300
Points
1,260
And immigration probably won't help much either....

Rural Canada’s Population To Continue Decline Without Immigration Policy Shift​


Canada’s rural communities will continue to face a population decline unless various levels of government make policy changes to direct immigrants to settle in small towns, villages, and hamlets instead of major urban centres, said a researcher at Western University.

Rural Canada has been witnessing a declining population trend for more than 55 years now, at a slow but steady rate.

For example, in Ontario in 1966, 2.6 million people inhabited rural communities, making up 37 per cent of the province’s total 7 million people.

In 2021, the rural population remained at 2.5 million people, while the total provincial population increased to 14.2 million people.


Why not reengineer the system to where we reward motherhood, large families and rearing children; thus encouraging internal growth rather than having to import it from the outside ?

Not forcing, encouraging. Defiantly not intended to go all dark and Handmaids Tale(ish).
 
Why not reengineer the system to where we reward motherhood, large families and rearing children; thus encouraging internal growth rather than having to import it from the outside ?

Not forcing, encouraging. Defiantly not intended to go all dark and Handmaids Tale(ish).
Because you need a full-spectrum local economy for that to occur, where there is room for everyone. Where everyone's talents can be exploited to their potential and everyone has value and isn't just a product, easily discarded. In which case, it isn't just an economy. It's a community of shared interests, values, and traditions.

But the globalists decided otherwise. They decided the whole wide world would become a single homogenized market for products and ideas (read, governance). This means that physical, practical labour is relegated to the third world, while the third world's creative elites are extricated from their homelands and moved to the first world, where the global decisional centers rake in all the money, leaving little for the working classes, be they domestic or foreign.
 
Why not reengineer the system to where we reward motherhood, large families and rearing children; thus encouraging internal growth rather than having to import it from the outside ?

Not forcing, encouraging. Defiantly not intended to go all dark and Handmaids Tale(ish).
Because that would be too socialist for conservatives that lament things like abortion and low birth rates. They don’t care about kids or mothers after they give birth.

I’ve mentioned it before where I think social conservatives could get a lot of traction if they backed increased subsidized time off for child rearing, easing adoption (possibly financially), subsidized post birth education etc etc.

As you say, incentivize using truly pro natal policies. But that means they’d be shifting left on those sorts of policies. Not sure they would survive the body seizures that would come with that…
 
Because that would be too socialist for conservatives that lament things like abortion and low birth rates. They don’t care about kids or mothers after they give birth.

I think that's a little harsh. Sounds like an angry LPC sound bite.

I’ve mentioned it before where I think social conservatives could get a lot of traction if they backed increased subsidized time off for child rearing, easing adoption (possibly financially), subsidized post birth education etc etc.

As you say, incentivize using truly pro natal policies. But that means they’d be shifting left on those sorts of policies. Not sure they would survive the body seizures that would come with that…

I cant understand why any Gov stripe wouldn't want and encourage higher birth rates.
 
I think that's a little harsh. Sounds like an angry LPC sound bite.
It isn’t. The same people that rail against abortion generally rail against social programs. It’s isn’t universal but it’s pretty much split on political spectrums when it really shouldn’t be. Look at the moaning about Quebec’s subsidized childcare over the years.
I cant understand why any Gov stripe wouldn't want and encourage higher birth rates.
Agreed.
 
It isn’t. The same people that rail against abortion generally rail against social programs. It’s isn’t universal but it’s pretty much split on political spectrums when it really shouldn’t be. Look at the moaning about Quebec’s subsidized childcare over the years.

Agreed.

We dont agree here.

I think this had more to do with the perception that it was a benefit Que could only afford because of their reception of transfer payments, from other provinces.
 
We dont agree here.

I think this had more to do with the perception that it was a benefit Que could only afford because of their reception of transfer payments, from other provinces.
Fair enough. But plenty don’t support universal child care either.

Like I said it creates a glitch in social conservative minds
 
Why not reengineer the system to where we reward motherhood, large families and rearing children; thus encouraging internal growth rather than having to import it from the outside ?

Not forcing, encouraging. Defiantly not intended to go all dark and Handmaids Tale(ish).

Luckily there's already a national level model for that, with an intact H&A system we could adopt ;)

Mother Heroine​

Mother Heroine (Russian: Мать-героиня, Mat'-geroinya) is an honorary title that was used in the Soviet Union and now Russia, awarded for bearing and raising a large family. The state's intent was not only to honor such large families, but also to increase financial assistance for pregnant women, mothers of large families, and single mothers, and to promote an increased level of health in mother and child.[1] The award was established in 1944 and continued to exist until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. On 15 August 2022 Vladimir Putin signed a decree reviving the honorary title.[2]

 
Why not reengineer the system to where we reward motherhood, large families and rearing children; thus encouraging internal growth rather than having to import it from the outside ?

Not forcing, encouraging. Defiantly not intended to go all dark and Handmaids Tale(ish).
I approve. The rest of the world can stay put.
 
Luckily there's already a national level model for that, with an intact H&A system we could adopt ;)

Mother Heroine​

Mother Heroine (Russian: Мать-героиня, Mat'-geroinya) is an honorary title that was used in the Soviet Union and now Russia, awarded for bearing and raising a large family. The state's intent was not only to honor such large families, but also to increase financial assistance for pregnant women, mothers of large families, and single mothers, and to promote an increased level of health in mother and child.[1] The award was established in 1944 and continued to exist until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. On 15 August 2022 Vladimir Putin signed a decree reviving the honorary title.[2]


I know we like to take things to extremes, but this is not my intent. My idea is massive tax breaks and other benefits for those who add to the population, especially those who can maintain some form of employment in the household at the same time. I.e. at least one working parent, as I don't think this should be confined to women.

Impractical on a number of levels.

1) You already have issues with your budget.
2) That would require see a large percentage of the workforce to stay at home
3) Housing is already tough for a lot of dual
Income families
4) Your tax base just got skewed.


Unworkable.

Agreed. Internal population growth takes a generation to start showing its effects.
 
Why not reengineer the system to where we reward motherhood, large families and rearing children; thus encouraging internal growth rather than having to import it from the outside ?

Not forcing, encouraging. Defiantly not intended to go all dark and Handmaids Tale(ish).

Because that would be too socialist for conservatives that lament things like abortion and low birth rates. They don’t care about kids or mothers after they give birth.

I’ve mentioned it before where I think social conservatives could get a lot of traction if they backed increased subsidized time off for child rearing, easing adoption (possibly financially), subsidized post birth education etc etc.

As you say, incentivize using truly pro natal policies. But that means they’d be shifting left on those sorts of policies. Not sure they would survive the body seizures that would come with that…

Declining birth rates are typically associated with increasing cultural social liberalism, ie. available contraception, increased family planning, delayed marriage age, increased female participation in the economy outside the home. All very socially liberal policies.

Declining requirements for parents to depend on children in their old age due to the increased welfare state is also a contributing factor to declining birth rate.

Decreased economic growth and opportunities in the locations experiencing low birth rate and associated doubts about both the ability to afford children and the children’s future in those economies are also increasing factors in the low birth rates.

All the above are liberal and Neo liberal policies or results of these policies. The policies may or may not be good that’s a judgement call but to state that social conservatives are to blame for not having supported more liberal, neoliberal or socialist policies to ameliorate the results of the liberal, neoliberal or socialist policies seems hilarious.
 
Declining birth rates are typically associated with increasing cultural social liberalism, ie. available contraception, increased family planning, delayed marriage age, increased female participation in the economy outside the home. All very socially liberal policies.

Declining requirements for parents to depend on children in their old age due to the increased welfare state is also a contributing factor to declining birth rate.

Decreased economic growth and opportunities in the locations experiencing low birth rate and associated doubts about both the ability to afford children and the children’s future in those economies are also increasing factors in the low birth rates.

All the above are liberal and Neo liberal policies or results of these policies. The policies may or may not be good that’s a judgement call but to state that social conservatives are to blame for not having supported more liberal, neoliberal or socialist policies to ameliorate the results of the liberal, neoliberal or socialist policies seems hilarious.
You missed my point. I wasn’t blaming social conservatives for the current state of low birth rates. Only their hypocritical position on being pro natal but only if it matches their politics. The same can be said of the left with theirs. As I said, it shouldn’t be political but it is

You also forgot decreased child mortality rates, increases in education and advancements in technology.
 
.... Decreased economic growth and opportunities in the locations experiencing low birth rate and associated doubts about both the ability to afford children and the children’s future in those economies are also increasing factors in the low birth rates ...
How does this square with the generally accepted theory that the better off a society is (broadly higher wages & better education), the lower the birth rate?
 
You missed my point. I wasn’t blaming social conservatives for the current state of low birth rates. Only their hypocritical position on being pro natal but only if it matches their politics. The same can be said of the left with theirs. As I said, it shouldn’t be political but it is

You also forgot decreased child mortality rates, increases in education and advancements in technology.
Evangelical socially conservative pro-life David French has made note of this contradiction in the conservative pro-life movement.
 
You missed my point. I wasn’t blaming social conservatives for the current state of low birth rates. Only their hypocritical position on being pro natal but only if it matches their politics. The same can be said of the left with theirs. As I said, it shouldn’t be political but it is

So they are hypocritical because they don’t accept a political solution that they don’t agree with and favour a different solution that is also political?
That still makes no sense.

How does this square with the generally accepted theory that the better off a society is (broadly higher wages & better education), the lower the birth rate?

This does seem very odd but it seems to be a factor in why Gen Z for example is not as interested in having children. I wonder if it’s now a confluence of a society wealthy enough to have a welfare system lowering the birth rate and now those in that society still being incredibly well off compared to the past or other areas but not having confidence in the future enough to want to bring in children. That lack of confidence may not be strictly accurate but it seems to be believed.

 
So they are hypocritical because they don’t accept a political solution that they don’t agree with and favour a different solution that is also political?
That still makes no sense.
No. They are hypocrites because they purport to be pro natalist in one instance but rail against pro natalist positions in other instances. Meaning their pro natalist position is based on political leanings and dogma as opposed to being rooted in true pro natalism.

The whole embryo debacle in the US for example is another thing one can point to that absolutely hurts the birth rate issue but “politics”.


You can read some of this position here.






It boils down to being anti abortion but pretty much ending their pro natalist position at that and not adopting a wider pro natalist culture.
 
No. They are hypocrites because they purport to be pro natalist in one instance but rail against pro natalist positions in other instances. Meaning their pro natalist position is based on political leanings and dogma as opposed to being rooted in true pro natalism.

It boils down to being anti abortion but pretty much ending their pro natalist position at that and not adopting a wider pro natalist culture.
You don't get to dictate what the position is of people with whom you disagree. Being against abortion is a stand-alone position about one particular thing. "Pro-life" is a term of art - either you acknowledge its limited and particular meaning in that particular debate, or you are arguing nonsense - the old, "you can prove anything if you get to make up your definition/evidence".
 
Back
Top