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.

Why only women?

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.

I met a guy just recently who separated from his gf because she wanted to have children. He didn’t.

If you’re advocating consequences it should apply to both sexes.

Why would we choose a world where we have to decide who to give healthcare for? Why can’t we take care of both?

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.

Ah yes, put the entire burden on women, coerce them into having kids, let men do whatever. Sounds great, totally sane.

Not all childless people are childless by choice.

What a unique opinion! Why do you think it is controversial?

To me the ratio just looks like an underdamped vibration of the baby boom. Boomer parents had more kids than the steady state.