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

[Remius]

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".

It isn’t about disagreement or dictating. They define themselves in their position. It’s simple, you can’t be a pro natalist if you oppose pro natalist positions. I am or should be limiting this to pro natal positions (which many pro life purport to being) which we are discussing in the context of declining birth rates. Nowhere in the quote you used do I use pro life. While pro life can pro natilist, most on that side are not really.

 

[Remius]

@Remius show us on the doll where the mean conservative hurt you.

Maybe critically read what I wrote if you are actually capable of that. But you have actually proved my point about this being a political spectrum issue. LOL. Edit: apologies if that was too harsh if the comment was an attempt at levity

I just want higher birth rates for Canadians, ya'll can have it with this weird bend in the conversation.

You actually posted a good argument on how to do that. Incentivizing. My point is that one side of the political spectrum will normally be against that.

 

[Furniture]

You actually posted a good argument on how to do that. Incentivizing. My point is that one side of the political spectrum will normally be against that.

In America, and against the particular solutions put forward by progressives there...

 

[Brad Sallows]

It isn’t about disagreement or dictating. They define themselves in their position. It’s simple, you can’t be a pro natalist if you oppose pro natalist positions. I am or should be limiting this to pro natal positions (which many pro life purport to being) which we are discussing in the context of declining birth rates. Nowhere in the quote you used do I use pro life. While pro life can pro natilist, most on that side are not really.

Where is the universally accepted definition of "pro-natalist"?

 

[Remius]

Where is the universally accepted definition of "pro-natalist"?

There are numerous examples of what a pro natalist definition or definitions are. It isn’t hard to find a simple dictionary definition along the lines of “support for increasing birth rates along with government support for that goal”.

There are more complex models but it generally involves multiple vectors in regards to having that policy.

This is what Singapore’s is more or less but it shows a more total approach that just being anti abortion.


This is just an example but you get the picture.

One of my points is that you are far more likely to reduce abortions and increase child birth rates with incentives and support than banning or criminalizing abortion.

 

[Furniture]

There are numerous examples of what a pro natalist definition or definitions are. It isn’t hard to find a simple dictionary definition along the lines of “support for increasing birth rates along with government support for that goal”.

There are more complex models but it generally involves multiple vectors in regards to having that policy.

This is what Singapore’s is more or less but it shows a more total approach that just being anti abortion.

View attachment 85088
This is just an example but you get the picture.

One of my points is that you are far more likely to reduce abortions and increase child birth rates with incentives and support than banning or criminalizing abortion.

Within that diagram I can see things progressives would take issue with, so are you just as harsh on North American progressives regarding being pro-natal?

 

[Remius]

Within that diagram I can see things progressives would take issue with, so are you just as harsh on North American progressives regarding being pro-natal?

Absolutely if they purport to be pro natalist. The thing with a comprehensive solution is you are likely going to piss off both sides. This discussion certainly highlights that fact.

Here is the counter diagram to the one I posted.

 

[Fabius]

This seems to be a very odd debate now honestly.
Aside from the specific issue above, the general argument articulated by @Remius above as I understand it, seems to be that in order to not be a hypocrite you must accept all potential policies that would further a political vision that one supports.

That’s a ridiculous assertion to me that doesn’t make sense.

 

[Remius]

This seems to be a very odd debate now honestly.

What is the oddity?

Aside from the specific issue above, the general argument articulated by @Remius above as I understand it, seems to be that in order to not be a hypocrite you must accept all potential policies that would further a political vision that one supports.

Not really. I believe in freedom of expression. I assume you do to, but if you only believe in freedom of expression that you agree with, you aren’t really a believer in freedom of expression now are you?

In this case the proponents of abortion being banned under the argument that it is to promote birth rates (which stats have shown to actually not be the case, but I digress) but at the same time reject pro birth rate policies (social, economic etc) are being somewhat hypocritical. It isn’t all or nothing but it certainly isn’t “one thing” damn everything else either. That being said one can certainly be pro abortion and not be pro natalist. But the discussion is so far about increasing birth rates one cannot be in favour of that if they reject those policies.

That’s a ridiculous assertion to me that doesn’t make sense.

You are free to believe that if you want. But I am open to hearing what policies you think would be pro natalist without pissing of one side or the other?

We do have a lot of pro natalist policies in place in Canada but that gets countered by liberal individual rights and freedoms and social programs that skew the efforts, hence why immigration is the easy button to increase our population.

 

[Brad Sallows]

This seems to be a very odd debate now honestly.
Aside from the specific issue above, the general argument articulated by @Remius above as I understand it, seems to be that in order to not be a hypocrite you must accept all potential policies that would further a political vision that one supports.

That’s a ridiculous assertion to me that doesn’t make sense.

There's a (somewhat loose) definition; it exists in political and religious flavours, the latter of which judging by the examples offered doesn't require a bunch of family support policies. The limited version is simply to be in favour of large families. It doesn't really have anything to do with the moral question of abortion. Being generally pro-natalist wouldn't require a person to be anti-abortion.

Whether or not there's a necessary and sufficient set of policies one has to accept in order to qualify to be pro-natalist is indeterminable. For example, if people prefer to raise families in detached housing rather than urban rabbit warrens, being pro-detached-housing should be on the list. If constant alarmist propaganda in the news is discouraging people from bringing children into the world, being pro-natalist should require strenuous efforts to kick the Chicken Littles of the world to the sidelines. Fertility in women is a key factor; pro-natalists should be encouraging people to pick mates, settle down, start families in their early 20s, and stick it out for at least 20 years.

 

[Remius]

There's a (somewhat loose) definition; it exists in political and religious flavours, the latter of which judging by the examples offered doesn't require a bunch of family support policies. The limited version is simply to be in favour of large families. It doesn't really have anything to do with the moral question of abortion. Being generally pro-natalist wouldn't require a person to be anti-abortion.

Agreed.

Whether or not there's a necessary and sufficient set of policies one has to accept in order to qualify to be pro-natalist is indeterminable. For example, if people prefer to raise families in detached housing rather than urban rabbit warrens, being pro-detached-housing should be on the list. If constant alarmist propaganda in the news is discouraging people from bringing children into the world, being pro-natalist should require strenuous efforts to kick the Chicken Littles of the world to the sidelines. Fertility in women is a key factor; pro-natalists should be encouraging people to pick mates, settle down, start families in their early 20s, and stick it out for at least 20 years.

Also agreed. But as I mentioned, progressive social tools and policies run counter to that. Meaning that it requires unbalancing the equation and leaning harder to one side or the other. Hence why the easier button toward population growth is immigration.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Agreed.

Also agreed. But as I mentioned, progressive social tools and policies run counter to that. Meaning that it requires unbalancing the equation and leaning harder to one side or the other. Hence why the easier button toward population growth is immigration.

Doesn't help the countries losing people. If demographic shrinkage is going to be a problem, it'll be an international security (as in, avoidance of conflict) problem. We need solutions that don't involve robbing other countries of their population, and particularly skilled parts of their population, even if we think that for now they have a "surplus" of people. While overall it's probably a net gain (skilled industrious people generally achieve greater lifetime potential and output in prosperous, relatively free countries), the gaining and losing nations are winners and losers, respectively.

Families with 2 or more children were common when I grew up (many with 3 or 4), when "family planning" had been well established, so birth control can't be entirely blamed. What's changed? Most of the basic elements of a middle class life are relatively cheaper. An outlier is housing. Transferring money to individuals using other excuses is just a band-aid. We need to fix the underlying problem, and if we get it fixed, we'd need to remove the band-aid so we can fix other problems.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Mod note: Given the details being shared back & forth worth discussing on their own, I've moved the pro/anti-natalist posts to a new thread here in Canadian Politics, given at least some of the solutions to increasing the birth rate are political.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Rudburg]

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”.


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.

This is a false equivalency. You are attempting to link a debate on moral issues with a debate over practical matters. The two are only loosely linked.

The "pro natalist" policies you have presented are all government social programs. All come with costs and tradeoffs, as well as potential benefits. Whether these policies are sensible is a fundamentally pragmatic issue; that is, their value is determined by whether or not they are a net benefit to society. People can oppose these programs for objective and rational reasons (government inefficiency/incompetence, high expense to taxpayers, existence of viable alternatives, etc), but probably not on moral grounds. Similarly, they can be supported for practical reasons (lower cost than alternatives, equitability of access, addresses needs not met elsewhere, etc), but probably not moral ones. These programs can be smart/stupid, but they are not inherently good/bad.

Arguments for or against abortion are entirely moral arguments. One side argues that individual choice and bodily autonomy should be supreme; the other argues for protection of the defenseless. Whether or not you agree with them, these arguments go to core beliefs of basic and fundamental human rights. Net benefit to society is irrelevant to opinions on this topic. Certainly, neither side has any particular interest in the impact on demographic statistics.

In equating the two debates, you are attempting to reduce a complex series of issues to a single "pro natalist" debate. In doing so, you have effectively created a strawman position that does not exist in order to accuse one group of hypocrisy.

 

[Remius]

This is a false equivalency. You are attempting to link a debate on moral issues with a debate over practical matters. The two are only loosely linked.

They are very linked. I’m not speaking specifically to those who only hold abortion as a moral issue.

The "pro natalist" policies you have presented are all government social programs. All come with costs and tradeoffs, as well as potential benefits. Whether these policies are sensible is a fundamentally pragmatic issue; that is, their value is determined by whether or not they are a net benefit to society. People can oppose these programs for objective and rational reasons (government inefficiency/incompetence, high expense to taxpayers, existence of viable alternatives, etc), but probably not on moral grounds. Similarly, they can be supported for practical reasons (lower cost than alternatives, equitability of access, addresses needs not met elsewhere, etc), but probably not moral ones. These programs can be smart/stupid, but they are not inherently good/bad.

That is what makes it political when it shouldn’t be. Again, if you promote pro natalist social policies you’ll actually have a better chance of actually reducing abortion rates since people will want to have children.

Arguments for or against abortion are entirely moral arguments.

No they aren’t. You are reducing it to only that when other factors are normally associated to it. Those that support anti abortion stances generally will bring a pro natalist argument to support their position.

One side argues that individual choice and bodily autonomy should be supreme; the other argues for protection of the defenseless.

That is only one part of the argument you have chosen to focus on.

Whether or not you agree with them, these arguments go to core beliefs of basic and fundamental human rights. Net benefit to society is irrelevant to opinions on this topic. Certainly, neither side has any particular interest in the impact on demographic statistics.

What? The abortion debate absolutely uses societal benefits or negatives as part of the arguments in that debate.

In equating the two debates, you are attempting to reduce a complex series of issues to a single "pro natalist" debate. In doing so, you have effectively created a strawman position that does not exist in order to accuse one group of hypocrisy.

You are the one that is reducing to a single point of debate (the moral one) and are not looking at the overall issues.

It isn’t black and white or one issue over another. It’s multi faceted.

 

[GR66]

There are numerous examples of what a pro natalist definition or definitions are. It isn’t hard to find a simple dictionary definition along the lines of “support for increasing birth rates along with government support for that goal”.

There are more complex models but it generally involves multiple vectors in regards to having that policy.

This is what Singapore’s is more or less but it shows a more total approach that just being anti abortion.

View attachment 85088
This is just an example but you get the picture.

One of my points is that you are far more likely to reduce abortions and increase child birth rates with incentives and support than banning or criminalizing abortion.

Those policies are fine, but do they actually work? Singapore still has one of the lowest (and still declining) fertility rates in the World with 2023 projected to drop in 2023 to a record low of 0.97

 

[Remius]

That would be another debate. The Singapore example was in response to a question of what defines pro natilism. That was used as an example. Not necessarily an example of what works or not.

 

[KevinB]

The issue is that the Venn Diagram’s that people put up are generally multi issue (sort of like life isn’t just one issue).

So you have socially conservative pro life, and quite often fiscally conservative people who prefer polices that are not in the best alignment of the pro life agenda.

Life is generally about compromises, and where one draws the line on a specific issue to fit it into their larger belief structure.

IMHO as a social and fiscal conservative, I do believe that in order to provide for better child rearing circumstances that tax breaks for families, child care support, and sexual education are absolutely essential to to supporting a pro life agenda. However I tend to be an outlier in that respect.

My means of reducing tax burdens are probably also an outlier, as I doubt my method of reducing the prison population would be palatable to most.

 

[GR66]

That would be another debate. The Singapore example was in response to a question of what defines pro natilism. That was used as an example. Not necessarily an example of what works or not.

You're correct. Singapore is a single data point, but there are a lot of countries that are facing natural population decline that are all trying by various methods (with very limited apparent success) to slow or halt that decline. All I'm saying is that the social trend in developed countries to lower fertility rates is a VERY strong tide to swim against and any suggestion that Government waving a magic wand with pro-natalist policies is magically going to correct this is naive.

 

[Remius]

You're correct. Singapore is a single data point, but there are a lot of countries that are facing natural population decline that are all trying by various methods (with very limited apparent success) to slow or halt that decline. All I'm saying is that the social trend in developed countries to lower fertility rates is a VERY strong tide to swim against and any suggestion that Government waving a magic wand with pro-natalist policies is magically going to correct this is naive.

That isn’t the suggestion though. I’ve already pointed out the conflict (generally in developed countries but not exclusively).