About as close to “genetically evil” as you can get. A species better dead, since all the better aspects would have been purged from it.
A society utter contemptuous of women is hardly likely to practice that kind of medicine. Assuming they don’t just burn all the books and hang the obstetricians for being filthy woman-sympathisers.
Isn’t this what it would have to come to, though? This hypothetical woman does not want to have a child, even if it (somehow) mean saving the species. I don’t see why she wouldn’t try to terminate on her own, and why a population willing to force pregnancy on people would be against keeping them prisoner.
Nonsense - you take good care* of your breeding stock. Anything else is just dumb - you want to make sure they remain in good health to survive for many subsequent breedings.
The primary reason I say she can’t be locked in a rubber room and fed intravenously is because it wouldn’t do the job. Intravenous feeding, like baby formula, is “good enough” for emergencies, and some people thrive on it, but doesn’t have all the nutrients, including micronutrients and those we have not identified yet, that a pregnant woman requires for incubating a normal human. I have no doubt that a society that advocates forced pregnancy would like to protect that pregnancy with a rubber room, forced nutrition, and forced movement. I’m just saying that we don’t yet have the technology to arrange that. We have the technology to move the embryo. We also can bribe the heck out of her.
One would have to immobilize the woman, refrain from medicating her to assist that, find a method of feeding that she does not participate in and can’t stop that will provide the required nutrients, arrange for mandated muscular stimulation, keep her off her back (due to the major blood vessel and the risk of fetal damage from lack of blood), keep her from losing or gaining too much weight, make sure she gains enough, medicate and doctor any complications… It gets very complicated very quickly.
Oh, and 1 out of 115 pregnancies end in miscarriage or stillbirth, even if everything is done right. What do we do then?
I’m firmly against forcing women to have to give birth. As others have said, in order to justify doing so you’d need to answer the question of why having a future generation is important. I’ve not read one argument that went beyond, “because we should.” Why do you care if there is another human after you’re dead?
I don’t want to see anyone suffer or hurt. The draft, taxes, immunizations are all in place, ostensibly, to help at least one person somewhere from suffering or hurting. People that are already in existence! Kill 10 to save 30? Sure, makes complete sense. But forcing a woman to give birth saves 0.
Well, there was that “final judgement” argument for a while. I was a little sad when that faded out; I wanted to further explore the ramifications of trying to control the timing of the final judgement by manipulating societal birthrates. There seemed likely to be a great deal of entertainment value there. 
A society like this is one that is choosing to abuse women; it is actively malignant to them. Otherwise it would simply choose to offer incentives rather than use force. Hurting the women is part of the point. Yes, people tend to take good care of breeding stock, but that’s in part because they are not motivated by malice towards them.
I did skip over that. The “logic” of it made my brain hurt. But it still comes down to the same thing. If the rapture was due to happen during your lifetime, forcing women to give birth won’t make any difference. If the rapture was due to happen in a future generation, you’d be dead regardless of whether or not more kids were born.
Start accusing people of witchcraft?
Sadly, you’re probably right. sigh
Do you not love your grandchildren if in the future your children had them? What about your great-grandchildren and so on. Would you not mind your descendents and billions of other human beings all killed and dead? Humanity is the greatest thing in this universe to exist and they should exist so they will be happy, progress, and exist. You really should care about them rather then have the Nietschze-Randian contempt for humanity.
Don’t you want humanity to continue for all eternity to continue to exist, delight, and be happy?
It’s funny, I never knew I was a fascist before today…
IMHO, it’d be wrong no matter the circumstances. However, I’m imagining a “Mad Max”-style world in such a scenario, in which case modern ideas of right and wrong basically go out the window.
We have evolved our morality in part due to the fact that modern technology has afforded us the luxury to do so. Things don’t suddenly stop being “wrong” when everything goes to hell, but their “wrongness” stops being a consideration. Barbarism is just the way these things go in that case.
I’m not entirely sure how I feel about this hypothetical. It’s just too weird.
I will point out, however, that folks are glossing over what the end days would be like, if there were no younger generation. It’s not just a case of everyone poofing out of existence. If the six billion of us began to age without a younger generation coming along to replace us, things would get really horrifyingly bad for the last few years, as the population aged out of the ability to work productively. We’re talking breakdowns of civilization bad–mass famines, rampant disease as sewer systems failed, wars fought with canes and walkers, you name it.
I don’t much care about whether humanity survives (at least, I don’t care on an ethical level). I do care about suffering, and the amount of suffering that would result in such a scenario would dwarf anything our species has yet seen.
And that’s the suffering against which we should weigh the denial of liberty to fertile women.
In other scenarios that weigh mass suffering against an individual, I come down pretty firmly on preventing that mass suffering. Some dude is an innocent carrier of a lethal pathogen, getting ready to walk into the Superbowl arena and expose tens of thousands to a messy death, and my only way of preventing the contamination is to shoot him before he gets out of the car and starts mingling with the masses? I pull the trigger. Sucks to be him, but it would suck worse to be one of the tens of thousands who would otherwise die.
(FWIW, I’d totally push the fat dude onto the tracks, too).
I couldn’t care less either way. I’ll be dead.
I am reminded of Joanna Russ’s We Who Are About To…
Until I started this thread, I never seriously thought that societies like that in the Handmaid’s Tale could happen. I mean, they seemed over the top, but I just figured, naively I know, “We have feminism now, and rights–things are never going to go to hell like that.”
I mean, to those of you whose idea of civilization are that sometimes we have to compromise, is it worth it? I mean, I look at women in Saudi Arabia, or in Handmaid’s Tale, and I can’t help thinking it’s barely a life. It’s a life half-lived, if that. I can’t help thinking that from the POV of a guy, it’s not so bad because men are just thinking in terms of what they’re going to have to do (i.e., subjugate, not be subjugated). Are any of you who are thinking that the rights of the individual woman aren’t so important female?
I’ll tell you now that despite being white and male, I reckon I’d be screwed in such a scenario. I’m severely disabled and society wouldn’t have the resources to keep me alive in the world we’re talking about. Seriously, I’d be dead.
So I can sympathise with the trauma of any woman being forced to give birth against her will, but it’d hardly be the worst thing happening to people in such a world. It’d be “law of the jungle”, and all sorts of craziness would be taking place.
A statement that pretty much admits that you don’t think that women deserve to be included in the category of “human”. They are hardly going to be “delight, and be happy” while being repeatedly raped and forced to breed.
And as for the men; they would be vermin, and having them “delight, and be happy” is the last thing I’d want.
You are ignoring the fact that you aren’t going to prevent mass suffering. Instead, you are just going to shove it all off onto the women.
The twisting of our species into something consisting only of rapists and rape victims is worse than its annihilation, as far as I’m concerned. There’s no point in preserving humanity by turning it into something that should be killed.
I can tell you that even if I lived in that society, I would strangle any girl babies at birth. I’m, of course, assuming that boy babies would be removed from the rape complex to be educated and stuff.
But it would mean having absolutely no autonomy over your body. Which is bad for anyone, male or female.
Shades of Toni Morrison’s Beloved here. I agree. I mean, for men, things would be bad, too, but not nearly as bad as for women. It’s like condemning your child to grow up as a slave. There’s nothing to hope for.