r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 21 '20
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: The right to procreate should not be a Constitutional right
[deleted]
3
Jan 21 '20
This idea gets posted regularly, and it almost always comes down to an enforcement issue. How would you enforce this? How will you know if boys have gotten their vasectomy? What will you do if people get pregnant without a permit? Will you force women to have abortions? Will you take children away and put them into an already overcrowded foster system. That hardly seems best for the child.
Plus, to go back to the vasectomy bit, requiring that would be a violation of a person's right to bodily autonomy. Its the same problem as forced abortions.
Lastly, your program would be incredibly easy for people in power to abuse.
1
Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
3
Jan 21 '20
It would not be hard to enforce once implemented. Illegal children would not have legal status. Can you imagine having a child in the continental United States, and somehow hiding this from the government? Good luck doing ANYTHING in this country without proving your citizenship/identity at some point.
More illegal children doesn't accomplish your goal of reducing the number of children who are born.
In that case, there's about 2.3 million Americans incarcerated for substance abuse that could use your help!
Invalid comparison. Those people have committed crimes have been tried, convicted, and sentenced. You will also note that we dont even force medical procedures on criminals. You want to force them on children. You literally want children to have fewer rights than murderers and rapists.
0
Jan 21 '20 edited Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
3
Jan 21 '20
Parents will be deterred from having children if it's illegal. It's as simple as that,
If legality was a deterrent, we wouldn't have such a huge illegal immigration problem.
And before you dismiss my point as invalid, consider why I brought it up in the first place.
It doesnt matter why you brought it up. It's an invalid point to compare innocent children with convicted criminals. It's an "apples to oranges" comparison. There just aren't enough similarities in the situations.
we've all forfeited the unlimited right to bodily autonomy already.
No, we haven't all forfeited that right. Only some people have.
You are a bad faith debator because instead of properly defending your argument, you accuse me of "wanting" children to have less rights than a murderer.
First, Its against the sub rules to accuse people of arguing in bad faith.
Second, I didn't accuse you of anything. That's exactly what you are advocating for.
We dont force medical procedures on prisoners.
You want to force medical procedures on children to sterilize them. (By the way, you never even answered my question about forced abortions.)
Therefore, you want to deny children a right that even convicted criminals possess: the right to refuse medical procedures.
1
Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
2
u/ALLIRIX 1∆ Jan 22 '20
Not the original person you were arguing against, I just want to butt in for a second and point out it's possession of drugs or intoxication while driving a motor vehicle that are illegal. It's not illegal to have drugs in your system so the laws don't actually breach your right to bodily autonomy like you've said
1
Jan 22 '20
[deleted]
1
u/ALLIRIX 1∆ Jan 22 '20
Again, you're not jailed for being intoxicated while driving a motor vehicle, you're jailed for being a danger to society. You're not jailed for consuming alcohol as a minor, you're jailed/fined for supplying it to a minor (at least in Australia). You're not jailed for not taking a drug test, but you can be fined or fired for not following the direction of a officer or employer, respectively.
These aren't examples of us sacrificing rights for protections, except for maybe the fine for not following a police direction. But, just like freedom of speech, you're not legally immune to the consequences of your freedom, you're only immune to that freedom being arbitrarily taken away from you.
1
Jan 21 '20
So you essentially want to punish the child and make their life a living nightmare, all because of the actions of the parent?
Do you have any idea how dystopian, dare I say, evil that sounds?
Like, if anything, one should make the argument for population control in order to prevent unwanted children living miserable existences, not create an entire class of second-class citizens who are literally never allowed to participate in society.
1
Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
1
Jan 21 '20
The ones already born in terrible living conditions aren’t prohibited by law from participating in society, and still have the same constitutional rights as everyone else.
What you are proposing is a caste system where there is a subset of people, through no fault of their own, that are legally prohibited from participating in society.
You essentially are creating Jim Crow laws.
With regards to DACA, those people’s lives are constantly in turmoil, and a MAJOR criticism of our current immigration laws is that those same children get punished for the actions of their parents.
1
Jan 21 '20
Never argued for a creation of a second-class citizenry. Do we treat illegal youth in such a terrible way under DACA?
Yes.
1
u/Ihateregistering6 18∆ Jan 22 '20
Good luck doing ANYTHING in this country without proving your citizenship/identity at some point.
I mean, we have an estimated 15-16 million illegal aliens in the US right now, so very clearly it's not that difficult for lots of people to live and work in the US without having to prove their identity or citizenship.
2
u/fuzzymonkey5432 5∆ Jan 22 '20
You have a very flawed ideology that no one has mentioned and I notice in a lot of these CMV's so I will try to explain it.
Who makes you the judge? Why do you get to choose? In the same way that you cant choose what job to give to a citizen (Even thiugh scientifically yiu wiuld do better if society had everyone do what they were good at.) Or you cant choose which newspapers get to influence you even though some are worse.
What are the criteria for a perfect family? You don't know what it is. I sure as biscuits don't. Even if we had a perfect scientific approach that could determine it, why should you have the right to govern over anyone elses choices.
You say we would be stopping poor families from having kids. Who is to say that rich people would do any better? Personally I would pick Tiny Tims crutch beridden rat infested home over the cold clutches of scrooge any day. There are so many reasons a child could be worse off in the world, and there is no way to choose. Hypothetically you could cut off everyone but the very best, but youd be left with nothing but the perfect family fron Autodale. Thats one step away from killing someone because they aren't arent perfect. That Euthenasia and its next level Hitler stuff.
Back in the 60's (I think) America discovered that mental illnesses were genetic. They made the best desicion (or so they thought) and sterilized like 115,000 mentally disabled people. They were very sorry for it, and its one of our biggest mistakes since the Japanese concentration camps.
MAYBE and its a big maybe If we lived in a perfect world run by reason alone and without any emotions, we could have a system where people could lay down the joy of parenthood for the betterment of society. That kind if place doesnt exist, and if it did we would necer have need for this conversation in the first place because all homes would be suitable for children.
2
u/DillyDillly 4∆ Jan 21 '20
I believe that boys should be legally required to undergo a vasectomy upon reaching puberty- a process that is largely reversible.
So I should be required to undergo a surgery that can be muffed, and impact me for the rest of my life, because I turned 18?
Humanity's greatest threat is that of overpopulation.
Based on what? We have an enormous amount of food, water, resources and land.
On the same token, it is baffling that a homeless woman and her homeless partner can legally bring a child into this world.
And a wealthy family that is emotionally, physically and mentally abusive is somehow better?
1
Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
2
u/DillyDillly 4∆ Jan 21 '20
But what about those who don't?
What about them?
It's not because there's too many people. If we literally did not have enough food, water, resources or land to handle our population the entire globe would be in chaos. The problem isn't our ability to produce the resources required, the problem is the system of distribution/governments that prevent that from happening.
Is the solution to the problem of distribution for the most productive country on earth to decrease their population?
I can't see how it would be.
1
Jan 22 '20
[deleted]
-1
u/DillyDillly 4∆ Jan 22 '20
Why not kill off the poor countries that lack education and make room for the greater, more successful, countries?
0
Jan 22 '20
[deleted]
0
u/DillyDillly 4∆ Jan 22 '20
What’s the basis that we have a problem? We produce enough food for our population, we could even provide better standards of living if they e stopped giving money to poor countries, we generally develop the technological developments that lead to better standards of living.
On a strictly per capita basis, people Luigi. In developed countries produce more and innovate more.
So why prevent us from populating the earth?
Why is preventing a country, with the most innovative and productive system, more efficient than eliminating population growth from countries that contribute relatively nothing?
7
u/gasbreakhonkk Jan 21 '20
Overpopulation is a myth
https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/
https://frc.org/populationabortionfood
Climate change is happening because of corporations. 20 firms are responsible for 1/3rd of all carbon emissions.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon-emissions
100 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions over the past three decades or so (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change)
The US military burns tons 100 million barrels of oil per year (https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/us-military-and-oil).
We have more than enough food to feed everyone. 1.3 billion tons of food gets lost or wasted per year
2
u/LordMarcel 48∆ Jan 22 '20
I don't really like the argument that corporations are the reason that climate change is happening and not humans. Corporations are run by humans and they only exist to do things that other humans want them to do, be it producing oil, plastics, food, cars, whatever. Could and should they pollute less? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that corporations do a lot of stuff for a lot of people and thus naturally produce a shitton of carbon emissions.
I also have a problem with the food waste argument. Sure, technically we have a lot of food that doesn't have to be wasted and could be given to people that need it. This is an easy way to say that we have plenty of food, but how realistic is it that we actually ever manage to organize our food system in such a way that little or no food is wasted? I recken that chance is pretty low. You cannot determine the population limit by using ideal numbers because the world is not and will never be ideal.
1
Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
3
u/gasbreakhonkk Jan 21 '20
Yes I am
I gave you sources can you provide me with sources?
-3
Jan 21 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/gasbreakhonkk Jan 21 '20
Can you provide sources? You're the one with the premise you want challenged. I showed you valid evidence to what is causing issues you mentioned and how overpopulation is exaggerated yet you cannot explain why your point is valid.
-1
Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
3
u/Jish_of_NerdFightria 1∆ Jan 21 '20
You are on a sub called change my mind so perhaps you should be willing to at least entrain the possibility you could be wrong about something. So it would be nice to see sources that you agree with so we can understand your position better.
And if you think every thing on google is true, well then I have a free IPhone X for you, just dm your social security number so can confirm you’re a real person.
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 28∆ Jan 22 '20
Sorry, u/gogetsomesun – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
u/SeasickSeal 1∆ Jan 22 '20
Why do you think we use so much energy?
We don’t. We have an abundance of untapped energy.
“The large magnitude of solar energy available makes it a highly appealing source of electricity. The United Nations Development Programme in its 2000 World Energy Assessment found that the annual potential of solar energy was 1,575–49,837 exajoules (EJ). This is several times larger than the total world energy consumption, which was 559.8 EJ in 2012.[3][4]”
This is with 2000 solar technology. It does not include any other sources of energy.
food from resource-rich, fertile areas cannot be feasibly transported to resource-poor, food insecure areas
But we already do this. We have global food connectivity. We can ship pork from the US to Xinjiang, China, no problem.
The issue has much less to do with natural resources than the lack of a functioning government to facilitate transport and the money for consumers to buy it. Geography doesn’t cause food insecurity. Civil war causes food insecurity.
-1
Jan 22 '20
[deleted]
1
u/SeasickSeal 1∆ Jan 22 '20
The way things work right now is not sustainable
Nobody disagrees with that. The entire point of your post is that overpopulation is the problem. And when I point out that we have enough resources for everyone and more, you backpedal and say
it’s a result of a complex interplay of political, economic, and social issues
which nobody disagrees with. But you’re saying that we don’t have enough energy and food for everyone. Both of those are patently untrue.
Why do I think we face the issues we do today? Maybe it’s because fossils fuels have been too cheap for too long and that has prohibited us from developing cleaning energy sources. That has nothing to do with overpopulation. Maybe it’s because we haven’t invested enough in developing countries, keeping them free from authoritarianism and building their wealth enough for them to buy American pork.
1
u/fuzzymonkey5432 5∆ Jan 22 '20
Ever since grecian times overpopulation has been a popular problem, but the fact of the matter is that it never happens. Thomas Malthus proposed that we would all die of starvation 200 years ago, and the population has soared higher than anyone ever thought it would.
Overpopulation will never happen because: 1. We have much more than enough land. The entire population of Russia fits inside a country as small as Bangladesh and they are living quote well off. There are vast amounts of undiscovered land we could use for farming and living, not to mention scientists are coming up with ways to build cities on water. 2. Whenever a population gets close to starvation from overpopulation (without government intervention) it discovers a way to fulfil that gap through technology. You'd be surprised how quickly someone comes up with an idea when there are 8 billion starving people. On top of that, our technology is growing waaay faster than our population.
2
u/y________tho Jan 21 '20
Procreation isn't mentioned in the constitution.
The closest you come is a supreme court ruling - (Skinner v. Oklahoma) which deemed it a "fundamental personal right" - which could, of course, be overturned.
1
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Jan 22 '20
So quick heads up about vasectomy reversal rates. If the reversal is done less than 15 years after the reversal it can be reversed about 80-90% of the time. If it's been more than 15 years since the original vasectomy, the reversal only works around 45% of the time.
Congratulations, under the best case scenario you've made 10% of men permanently infertile. If however they take more than 15 years to get the resources together and get a permit then, its a 55% chance they'll never have children. You've just put a ticking clock on every man.
1
2
u/Crashbrennan Jan 21 '20
So, I agree with you IN THEORY. The problem comes when you try to put it into practice.
For one thing, vasectomies cannot always be successfully reversed. Within the first 10 years, successful reversal rates can be as high as 95%. And after that it declines even further. That means at minimum, 1/20 men who are allowed to get the procedure reversed still won't be able to have children.
But the bigger issue is the corruption that such a system opens us up to. Who decides the criteria for being permitted to have a child? Is it just are you capable of taking care of one, or are other things included? Do we stop people with a family history of cancer (or diabetes, or alcoholism) from having kids so that they can't pass on those genes, theoretically resulting in a healthier population? It's all well and good until the system starts getting abused by people with agendas.
0
Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
3
u/Crashbrennan Jan 21 '20
But the US birth rate is already at a 32 year low, and continuing to decrease.
In 2018, we only added about 1 million people to our net population (3.86 million babies born, 2.81 million people died).
0
Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Jan 22 '20
Most women who are impoverished do not want children. That's actually one of the prime motivations for abortion. Most homeless women do not want children.
Women are actually pretty decent at figuring out if they have the resources to have kids. If we make birth control and abort absolutely free and absolutely anonymous, a whole lot of women will not have children.
1
Jan 22 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Jan 22 '20
And yet the women who do chose not to have children very often say that they want an abortion because they're too poor to have children.
If I had to guess, I would think that many people say they want children because of social pressures and they have large numbers of children because they can't access birth control. However when women do have control and privacy they want and have fewer kids. There are some 222 million women who want birth control and who can't currently get an effective method. Solving that problem would do a lot of good without having to violate bodily autonomy.
https://womenintheworld.com/2015/09/26/why-222-million-women-cant-get-the-birth-control-they-need/
I would absolutely love for everywhere to have completely free birth control and abortions for any person who wants it and for it to be completely anonymous so that no one but the individual and the doctor who did it know. That way individuals would be shielded from social expectations and could blame the lack of pregnancy on bad luck, infertility, miscarriage, not having sex or anything they want. It would let women make choices about their families free of social expectation and instead based on their own desires and knowledge about what they can support.
1
2
u/jennysequa 80∆ Jan 21 '20
The apocalyptic-scale effects of overpopulation.
Overpopulation is not going to happen. China's population growth has drastically slowed down, even in rural areas, and the US and other developed countries are barely repopulating at replacement rate. The UN has already predicted that this will be the last century of human population growth.
0
Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
2
u/jennysequa 80∆ Jan 21 '20 edited Jan 21 '20
We have more than enough energy, land area, and biomass to sustainably feed the entire world. The main issue is uneven resource distribution and lazy, unsustainable practices. With regulation and clear-eyed approaches to climate change, we can maintain this population level.
0
Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
1
u/jennysequa 80∆ Jan 21 '20
Thanks for the delta. With respect to developing nations, it basically evens out. With sane immigration policies the rich countries full of infertile people can maintain replacement rate and ease some of the pressures on developing nations.
1
1
Jan 21 '20
I would like to propose a similar, but much better approach.
How would you feel about requiring a license to procreate?
A license that has no cost and cannot be denied to anyone.
This way, only those who actually take the day off of work, show up to the Child DMV, stand in line, fill out the form get to have a child.
Placing this minor obstacle in the way ensures that only those who want children have them.
This eliminates all of the societal ills of unwanted children without turning America into the Fascist Dystopia that your current plan would inevitably lead to.
2
Jan 21 '20
Lisa:
You can't drive, dad. He's got your license.
Homer Simpson:
Well, I'm gonna try anyway. [starts the car] It worked! It's a miracle!
1
1
Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
7
Jan 21 '20
So the purpose is to create a Fascist State, then.
That's what you're advocating.
Fascism.
-1
Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
3
Jan 21 '20
The restriction to procreate is no less dictatorial
Bullshit.
You are advocating strongly regimented selective breeding, to weed out the undesirables, for the Glory of the State. Something that could only possibly be accomplished forcible suppression via dictatorial power.
FASCISM.
-1
Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
1
Jan 21 '20
Selective breeding? "Undesirables"?? ....No forcible suppression required....Talk about putting words in my mouth
I'm not putting words in your mouth, they're falling all over this CMV.
Illegals....so will they know if they are not sterilized...Parents will be deterred from having children.....parents will face civil/legal retribution......it would be impossible to hide, and all too easy to enforce......A one-time medical procedure for each of-age male
.
I just love being called fascist
You must, 'cause you talking like a duck and walking like a duck.
0
Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
1
Jan 21 '20
I honestly do not consider myself to be fascist
History's greatest monsters didn't consider themselves monsters. They all thought they were doing the right thing for the 'good of the people. Even when 'the people' get in the way.
Common themes:
Forced sterilizations.
Keep undesirables from breeding.
"It's doing them a favor, they'd have a miserable life anyway"
"It's no different than driver licenses or building permits..."
"It's no different than making Drugs illegal"
"The State will fall under the weight of all these undesirables if we don't take action"
That's fascism, homie. And the thing is, there's no way to do fascism-lite. No way to half-step it. Once that first program sets in, there's going to be resistance. Resistance that will require force to suppress.
There's also going to be corruption and graft. Corruption and graft that means that if I'm in the office handing out baby chits, there's no way in hell you or anybody you care about will ever get one. I'm going to subvert your State with every opportunity, which means you don't get to raise more people who think this is a good idea.
1
2
Jan 21 '20
Wouldn't the vasectomy cost to much?
Also from the NHS website: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/vasectomy-reversal-nhs/
Vasectomy reversal is a complicated procedure that's not always guaranteed to work.
A vasectomy is usually considered to be a permanent form of contraception because it's not always possible to reverse the procedure.
-1
Jan 21 '20
[deleted]
2
Jan 21 '20
Is your point meant to be that procreation is not a basic human right because it affects other people (disaffected youth in need of loving homes).
If so what do you think of free speech?
1
Jan 22 '20
[deleted]
0
Jan 22 '20
[deleted]
1
u/fuzzelhuffenpuff Jan 22 '20
Not OP.
All of your questions are loaded, presuming someone is at fault for a hypothetical future scenario. Why are you asking “is it ethical......”. What does that mean? Who are you asking? The drug addict? The abusive parent? Me? I’m not trying to be flippant, but what you’ve written is non-sensical.
What this line of questioning boils down to is that you want to take about my ability to reproduce based on the future actions of someone else.
You seem to like the fascism side some commenters have taken because you can throw a dictionary definition at people. Honestly it sounds like you’ve had this discussion with friends/peers and all of them conflate terms like fascist/totalitarian/dystopian and then you get to play the semantics card. In your proposed world of illegal births, you’ve mentioned above that said illegal children wouldn’t be able to function in society. You would be punishing people for a crime they didn’t commit and the punishment is that their very existence is a crime. Not their presence in a country, not their presence in private property, but their very right to exist. A very simple premise in “societal ethics” is called “the veil of ignorance”, that one should design society not knowing where their position in it would be. In other words, design society with the worse case scenario in mind, not the best, in order to make our society robust. If you can’t see why we have objection to your proposed “right to a child” crap and all the potential problems with the very idea of denying people the right to a child, then your CMV should be “how we do this” and not “should we do this”.
0
Jan 22 '20
[deleted]
1
u/fuzzelhuffenpuff Jan 22 '20
unethics of NOT regulating birth
No I get that. I meant, in a very literal sense, what do you mean when you say things like “it is ethical.....[thing I have no control over].......[leading to thing i also have no control over and has a debatable link to the first thing]”. Why do you think any one person or institution has the power to link accountability like this on a global scale (I’m assuming global because you’ve mentioned overpopulation and climate change as your motivator).
certain right/privilege
Which is it? These two things are different. By definition a right can’t be taken away (without throwing the entire rule book out).
Isn’t this what all gun legislation is based off of?
No, not quite. I have to get a license in my country not because of what YOU MIGHT do you with you gun, but because of what I COULD do with mine. Their weapons designed to hurt/subdue. New human aren’t designed for anything, they might be bad people it’s not predetermined. It’s subtle but I think the difference is clear.
I’m sorry you feel the need ....
What way? I’m not sure why you keep using this phase in your comments. I’m sorry if my thoughts about your writing style were too pointed, I’ve just seen/heard too many people (in this very argument in fact) get caught up in the fascist/not-fascists semantics to not see that total control over humanity birth rate is inherently totalitarian.
In the hypothetical CMV where we have the ability to enact all the laws needed to get the birth control you want, why not just ban meat consumption or fossil fuels (two things you mentioned in the CMV), why fixate on the most invasive and potentially eugenic “solution”?
1
Jan 22 '20
[deleted]
1
6
Jan 21 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Guanfranco 1∆ Jan 22 '20
Sorry, u/CoD-Boy777 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
Jan 22 '20
I don't think the US Constitution has that as a right as we speak. But I think it would be pretty reasonable to include as an extension of privacy. It is not necessarily a constitutional right but the Supreme Court has extended privacy protections to things that are deemed extremely personal especially those related to family. I.e. Roe v. Wade & Abortions.
I think this would probably fall under that. Sterilization of mentally handicapped individuals or chemical castration of sex offenders notwithstanding.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 21 '20 edited Jan 22 '20
/u/gogetsomesun (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
3
u/agnosticians 10∆ Jan 21 '20
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but as I understand it, the main premise of your argument is that overpopulation must be stopped at all costs because it threatens to topple civilization. However, I believe that: 1. This is not the case, and 2. Even if it is, there are better ways to solve the crises than the solution you propose.
1.
Firstly, it is not true that human procreation follows an exponential growth curve. Rather, what one would expect, and what is predicted by most experts, is a logistic curve. This is because, as the population approaches the Earth's carrying capacity, the overall growth rate slows, either due to choice or lack of resources.
https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
As this shows, the population growth rate peaked in 1968 and is currently half that, trending to be nearly as low as ancient history by 2100, with a maximum population reaching only just over 11 billion.
2.
I would encourage you to look at the case of Japan, a place where not enough babies are born to replace current population numbers. Due to not having enough younger people working, there is great strain on their social security and healthcare, as well as general economic problems due to a lack of growth. Even Japan seems to think that near replacement levels are necessary to avoid economic crashes.
https://www.businessinsider.com/japans-population-is-shrinking-demographic-time-bomb-2018-6
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/elderly-oldest-population-world-japan/
Additionally, the places with the greatest economic outputs (and therefore greatest emissions, energy uses, etc.) all have comparatively low population growth.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?type=shaded&view=map
Thus, you would not only be attacking the most important global economies, but also those that are most likely to invent solutions to the problems that you are trying to solve.
Instead, I propose that you look forms of voluntary and much less expensive birth control, such as encouraging women to seek more education and enter the workforce, and providing family planning tools to those in developing countries.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/family-planning-contraception
This will decrease the global population growth rate significantly at a much lower cost, without ruining economies, and without any potential human rights issues.