Where did I ever say we should limit rights?

Please, point me to where in the context of my post I said that. I did not and that was never my intention. Why did you interpret what I said as meaning that?

You should ask yourself why you don't want to get pregnant, why you want a business, why you like pets and why you see children/families as obligations instead of purpose. You think it's because that's just the way you are but you recognize nurture is a part of creating you not just nature.

Think about it like this. A species of animal with females who hate getting pregnant would cease to exist (unless the males raped the females etc.. but let's ignore these technicalities). The essence of what I'm saying is that biologically, women need a drive to procreate or the animal wouldn't be in existence today. It would have lasted 1 generation then extinct. If some academics were studying these animals and noticed a trend where the women liked getting pregnant then all of a sudden didn't like getting pregnant in large numbers, they would question what was going on. They wouldn't ask if the females just naturally didn't like getting pregnant, no they would look for environmental factors. Maybe the pollution is causes a genetic defect that reduces the drive to procreate, maybe the male have been infected with a virus that makes them smell like another animal, etc... They would assume some sort of factor is subverting the desire for women to procreate.

That is what is going on in human society. That subversion is the State and society itself. It is unsustainable. Currently, without immigration, western countries would have a negative population rate. A civilization that is decreasing in population is a dying civilization. This happened in Rome before they fell. It was so bad they made laws trying to make people have more kids without outright saying you must have kids or else.

My point is that we need to change the societal factors that lead to less children. It is not money. Everyone thinks it's money but it's not that. The issue is the State itself, marxism and wealth redistribution. It subverts the natural order of society in order to satiate the masses toward only having a function of producing for the benefits of others by creating a system that provides limited comforts to keep people trapped in this bubble of a lifestyle that makes them think it's what they want when it's wholly lacking in essence of the kind of lifestyle they could have if it more approached their natural purpose.

Don't force women to have kids but foster an environment that leads to this by reducing the State and increasing people's liberty. You'd find that with more freedom, not less, women would actually opt to choose this sort of lifestyle more often. The more the State has imposed itself on people to force communist values and public institutions or 'woke' ideologies, the more women's natural inclination for children has been subverted.

I am saying the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. I'm saying to increase people's liberty not to decrease it. But understand, having free education, free healthcare, free welfare and all these free things to not need to be faced with the consequences of the turbulent life that is liberty is not freedom. Those things, which requires the labour of others to guarantee are privileges which have nothing to do with liberty except in how in order to guarantee them, one must oppress the liberty of another by forcing redistribution of one's labor against one's will. Liberty is not safe and secure because liberty has risk associated with failure and that is why in such a society, women naturally gravitate toward strong men that can ensure safety and security which often means they end up having his children. The more you oppress men to guarantee safety/security without any risk, the more you subvert the natural order and actually end up restricting freedom.

Where did I ever say we should limit rights?

Please, point me to where in the context of my post I said that. I did not and that was never my intention. Why did you interpret what I said as meaning that?

You should ask yourself why you don't want to get pregnant, why you want a business, why you like pets and why you see children/families as obligations instead of purpose. You think it's because that's just the way you are but you recognize nurture is a part of creating you not just nature.

Think about it like this. A species of animal with females who hate getting pregnant would cease to exist (unless the males raped the females etc.. but let's ignore these technicalities). The essence of what I'm saying is that biologically, women need a drive to procreate or the animal wouldn't be in existence today. It would have lasted 1 generation then extinct. If some academics were studying these animals and noticed a trend where the women liked getting pregnant then all of a sudden didn't like getting pregnant in large numbers, they would question what was going on. They wouldn't ask if the females just naturally didn't like getting pregnant, no they would look for environmental factors. Maybe the pollution is causes a genetic defect that reduces the drive to procreate, maybe the male have been infected with a virus that makes them smell like another animal, etc... They would assume some sort of factor is subverting the desire for women to procreate.

That is what is going on in human society. That subversion is the State and society itself. It is unsustainable. Currently, without immigration, western countries would have a negative population rate. A civilization that is decreasing in population is a dying civilization. This happened in Rome before they fell. It was so bad they made laws trying to make people have more kids without outright saying you must have kids or else.

My point is that we need to change the societal factors that lead to less children. It is not money. Everyone thinks it's money but it's not that. The issue is the State itself, marxism and wealth redistribution. It subverts the natural order of society in order to satiate the masses toward only having a function of producing for the benefits of others by creating a system that provides limited comforts to keep people trapped in this bubble of a lifestyle that makes them think it's what they want when it's wholly lacking in essence of the kind of lifestyle they could have if it more approached their natural purpose.

Don't force women to have kids but foster an environment that leads to this by reducing the State and increasing people's liberty. You'd find that with more freedom, not less, women would actually opt to choose this sort of lifestyle more often. The more the State has imposed itself on people to force communist values and public institutions or 'woke' ideologies, the more women's natural inclination for children has been subverted.

I am saying the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. I'm saying to increase people's liberty not to decrease it.