>> Anytime where someone thinks the solution to a problem is taking away choices from another group it's time to be very very suspicious to say the least.

> Is it?

Yes.

To quote you: "get over the idea that our biology is aligned with ethics."

> Nature and evolution never gave us the choice for millions of years. We only had the choice for the last century and for the first time in human history, humanity is hitting population decline. Asia, notably Korea, Japan, and china are hitting it first.

You say this like population decline is a bad thing.

It's true that it upends economic growth that is based on population growth.

Beyond that it's not particularly clear cut.

> Also Why don't you take more time to read what I wrote. I never BLAMED women.

And yet your solution is to make them have more children ("So actually I think the real solution to these problems is actually banning birth control.), and "Women don’t get with men, men are frustrated but also there’s no children"

You causal chain clearly makes women responsible: you argue that population growth is the solution to male suicide(!!), that women "don't get with men", and therefore the solution to the male suicide problem is to ban birth control.

To make it crystal clear:

There is no evidence that shrinking population leads to male suicide.

There are good arguments that a shrinking population is a good thing.

This pulls out the two pillars that support your argument for banning birth control.

>Yes.

No.

>get over the idea that our biology is aligned with ethics.

This quote is true. See praying mantis example. Plenty of examples where the male or female dies sacrificing itself for the next generation. These are not ethical features of biology. They are practical and they factually exist.

>You say this like population decline is a bad thing.

It is. The eventual end of population decline is the decline of civilization and eventually the end of humanity. The first part we face in our lifetimes is economic decline, joblessness, and more.

>Beyond that it's not particularly clear cut.

It's clear cut, within your lifetime you will see a 1st world country be brought down by a complete lack of people. Japan or Korea. We already see the effects in the country. Entire towns and villages vanishing. You just need to scale that up to see what happens next. This is not theoretical. It is happening in front of our eyes.

>And yet your solution is to make them have more children

That's not blame. When a woman has children, so does a man. The man bares the same responsibility.

>You causal chain clearly makes women responsible

It does. They aren't responsible willingly. It's not that they made a bad choice and they become responsible. It's a logistical fact. For example if your car breaks down and you can't drive it. The thing responsible for breaking down is the car. But is it the cars fault? No. Women are the causal source, but it's not their fault.

If you want to make things more fair. Porn is a causal factor from the male side. It keeps a lot of males perpetually single.

>There is no evidence that shrinking population leads to male suicide.

I never claimed this. My claim is that men BEING single and not able to find a male or a girlfriend or a wife increases suicide rates. Think about it. It's a very VERY realistic proposition.

>There are good arguments that a shrinking population is a good thing.

There is FACTUAL on the GROUND realities that show currently how bad it is.

>This pulls out the two pillars that support your argument for banning birth control.

It pulls out nothing.