Sounds like a gross society justified by what seems to be inflating the intent of a population. 'Demand to be funded' is some inadequacy you have being projected onto target population.
It isn't just about bringing a bunch of cells to term.
But if you want to oversimplify, why not government fund gestation vat technology? The main blocker for progressing on those right now appear to be self imposed.
Or maybe societies could instead make the prospect of having children less onerous? It's not an uncommon story in America that a couple will choose to stay unmarried when having children so that the mother can qualify for benefits like childcare (which, if you haven't had children yourself, is staggeringly expensive when it's available at all).
To think that the solution here is to penalize women even more is insane.
This is the extremely marketable "solution". Easy to sell to voters. The problem is that it does not work whatsoever. There is no evidence anywhere that transfers to mothers increase birth rates, or that transfers to women increase pairing rates (the upstream problem of birth rates).
Gettimg mixed signals. "Modest proposal" indicates satiricsl suggestion, but the words "this is going to be flagged to hell" indicates a serious proposal that is controversial.
I might overthinking it, but some clarification either way would be nice.
To be completely honest with you, it's a bit of both. I realise that this idea is somewhat obnoxious, hence the gallows humour. At the same time, I genuinely don't think we have a way out of this that does not involve reforms we today would consider obnoxious.
