Being anti discrimination started with not discriminating people for things they can't control. Race, gender, etc.
Now we're moving into territory of not discriminating against optional things people choose (having children).
This is a very significant change, IMO. I wonder how far it can be taken.
I think there's a fair argument that since pregnancy only affects women then it counts as gender discrimination. However, if that line of thinking was applied everywhere then nearly everything would be sexist because few things affect men and women exactly 50/50. So in and of itself, that reason cannot fully explain it.
The phenomenon you describe is not new. Discrimination law differs by jurisdiction, but there are various protected classes that may be seen as "optional things people choose". People will not agree on precisely which such classes truly reflect choice, but some examples may include religion, familial/marital status (and related), political activity/affiliation (and related), pregnancy (and related), military/veteran status, matriculation/student status, place of residence/business, whistleblowing ("anti-retaliation"), source of income, smoking, and participation in lawful activities during non-work hours. (Some people believe even more class membership reflects choice; indeed, this is often a factor in their reasoning about whether the classes should be protected.)
Some of these classes are protected in the United States as of the Civil rights acts of 1964 and 1968, as well as other federal laws from 1974 and 1978. (The protection of different religions is, of course, a founding principle of the United States. However, many people do not believe religion is a choice.)
The following webpage was helpful in assembling this list and includes a few amusing items such as membership in the Communist party (not protected in Nebraska) as well as having a degree in theology (protected in Oregon): http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/discrimina...
I'm less concerned with the law and more curiou what people actually think about those various types of discrimination, and why. Its a fascinating moral question.
As crazy as it sounds, it still is a clear choice.
It's a common trope in cartoons that the bad guys want the opposite - to destroy the world.
I think you make an important point though, and I have no good argument to it.
The best I can do is point out that having children does not fall on the responsibility of every woman. Not every woman needs to reproduce for society to continue.
So the question is, is it okay for people to judge others for their personal choices, even if it is societally necessary? I think there are countless examples where no one bats at an eye this category of discrimination - for some definition of necessary.
I mean come on, your argument is just weird and makes no sense.
We are talking about the 2nd most powerful biological drive after survival. You wouldn't say "as crazy as this sounds, continued existence is a clear choice" - even though it is, because anyone could decide to kill themselves at any time. And therefore they're choosing not to at every moment they don't.
But you don't say that because that makes no sense.
And thus I say that the notion that having children, while yes in theory a choice, also reflects the second strongest drive after survival and is less of a choice than one might think.
* also as a recent father, I'm gonna pull that card and say that you clearly aren't a parent, and Just Don't Get It.
To address your last point, my first comment was not really specific to children, none of my comments really have been.
I enjoy thinking about these things. So indulge me.
Life objectively is a choice. There is no denying that.
The question I asked above is, should it be morally okay to negatively judge/discriminate people based on their choices, even for a choice that is societally necessary in aggregate?
At first it might seem like the answer is no - but counter examples are easy to think of. Take drinking water. Producing it is societally necessary. Would it be okay to negatively judge an intelligent software developer for pivoting and becoming a pipe repairman for the local water utility? many would think so! You might think it is a waste of his potential. It would not be considered taboo to negatively judge him for making that choice.
Of course there are differences with child birth, but they aren't relevant to the question I've asked above - which is sufficiently answered. The answer is yes, it's okay to judge/discriminate even for societally necessary things.
Of course, the next step is to take the reasoning farther, and ask more questions. Perhaps I shouldn't lump judging and discrimination together. But I'm satisfied here.
Just to circle back and explain how we got here:
1. I started by pointing out that child birth is a choice and that we commonly discriminate people for their choices
2. Someone responded that it is societally necessary in aggregate and not a choice
3. I showed a simple counter example that it is okay to discriminate against people even when that choice is societally necessary in aggregate
It's a "choice" in the same sense that eating or drinking water is a choice. You can choose not to do it, but at a societal level if you do that everything quickly ceases to exist.
Now we're moving into territory of not discriminating against optional things people choose (having children).
This is a very significant change, IMO. I wonder how far it can be taken.
I think there's a fair argument that since pregnancy only affects women then it counts as gender discrimination. However, if that line of thinking was applied everywhere then nearly everything would be sexist because few things affect men and women exactly 50/50. So in and of itself, that reason cannot fully explain it.