Should women have a right to do abortion or should we ban it like Stalin did?

Should women have a right to do abortion or should we ban it like Stalin did?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JhXKlYnSWjA&t=1s
revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/abort.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770
marxists.org/reference/archive/field-alice/protect/ch04.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633559/
popline.org/node/647573
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/72/1/241s.full
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It should be allowed, but not frivolously

let them have it, who cares

...

abortion is a right. yes.

The "someone else's body" is only alive because it's linked to "your body"

Fine

Fuck

For some reason pregnant woman makes my dick harder than usual.

Abortions should be easily available and covered on demand. Those who have moral objections to the procedure can abstain from it, but those who would see grim economic consequences from having to bring a child to term should not be forced to suffer that fate if it can be helped.

The current restrictions on it being only the first-trimester is probably a decent standard: it's before the fetus has developed the brain capacity for conscious thought. Also the only reason Stalin had it banned was because, like Ceaușescu, he became fixated on encouraging population growth.


That's technically true for both a fetus and a fetus: pregnancy is technically a biologically parasitic relationship for the mother. The only difference is that pregnancy is temporary and (obviously) is necessary for the survival of the species.

Fuck, meant to say "fetus and tapeworm"

...

Seeing how it's a choice between hospital and back alley abortions, I choose former.

That doesn't look like a woman to me, user.

If you can breed a loli, she is a woman.

I'd be interested to hear what the women on here think

loved the pic

stalin just banned it because of the war effort to increase soviet union's manpower

Will you stop with this nonsense? It wasn't Stalin's personal decision.

And abortion in some Bumfuck, Nowhere in 1934 by a barely trained medic (let's be realistic here) is not exactly healthy.

I don't like Zizek, but stop eating from trashcan. Nobody was encouraging population growth. Contraception was a thing. Condoms were a thing. USSR wasn't discussing any "natalist policies".

What you are talking about is a part of old propaganda campaign against a very good question "why doesn't America support pregnant women, while Soviets do?"

Capitalist shills came up with perfect explanation: because Soviets are evil.

>>>/gulag/

wtf

My property should not have right to end my bloodline.

So Stalin wanted to use newborns to fight the war? Or was he hopping that the war would go on for 20 fuycking years in order for those children to become soldeirs?

Also, that's still idiotic because the USSR and an endless pit of reserve troops. And it's not me saying it, it's this russian made documentary:
youtube.com/watch?v=JhXKlYnSWjA&t=1s

The second communism happens we're instituting a global 2 child policy with forced abortions for failure to comply.

As long as the revolution doesn't need fresh cannon-fodder, every woman should have the right to abortion.

Everyone must be aborted.

The law in question was the Decree on the Prohibition of Abortions, the Improvement of Material Aid to Women in Childbirth, the Establishment of State Assistance to Parents of Large Families, and the Extension of the Network of Lying-in Homes, Nursery schools and Kindergartens, the Tightening-up of Criminal Punishment for the Non-payment of Alimony, and on Certain Modifications in Divorce Legislation
It included:
>A section containing laws explicitly called "On Increasing Material Aid by the State to Women in Childbirth and on Establishing State Aid to Large Families "

revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/abort.htm

This is a pretty clear cut plan for trying to use state policy to encourage population growth, incentives and all; it doesn't take brainwashing from "propaganda" to see that. Not only that, but the very preface itself goes on to talk about justifying the ban on abortion as a moral concern rather than a material one. There's no material reason why abortion would need to be banned (assuming the procedure itself was optional) unless A) the procedure itself was misleading and unsafe (which statistics suggest that the legalization of abortion decreased abortion-related deaths from around 42% to 14% in only 4 years) or B) the outcome of abortion (a child is not brought to term and population does not increase) is unfavorable from the standpoint of state policy.

I may be eating from the trashcan of ideology, but you are a fucking seasoned dumpster diver.

GODDAMN

Good post by the way.

Yes, I find no problems in killing life that isn't conscious and that is functioning more or less like code being executed. If it is shown that fetuses display higher-order thinking and decision making, I will amend my position.

Dunno why you're all bickering over Stalin, there's one socialist who definitely hated abortion

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770

look angry cat…it happened during different times. legalization of abortion is a very recent conquest.
You shouldn't be judging those days with your current beliefs. It's the same as liberals talking about white guilt when the fact is, the concept of racism didn't existed back then.

yes it did

also
You guys really disappoint me with your lack of social ambitions. I thought you wanted a social revolution that abolishes the shit that socially fucks us sideways due to artificial political economies. You are pathetic

Are we socially conscious leftists or not here? Fuck me man.

Except the victory was already made. Abortion was legal in the Soviet Union from 1920-1936, and as I mentioned in the previous post, it was doing wonders for women's health and liberation in a manner consistent with the goals of a society powering towards Communism. This was purely a top-down mandated regression of progress. The move didn't even necessarily have popular support: the legalization was incredibly popular among those living in cities with access to hospitals (with general apathy from the country, as the law changed little for them with the lack of medical infrastructure available to them).


I wasn't stating that population growth was good or bad, I'm merely refuting the idea that population growth wasn't the intended goal of the law in question.
Which abortion plays little role in. In fact, it serves to benefit the general populace by ensuring one is not forced into servitude of childcare: it creates more voluntary conditions for which healthier and more engaged families can emerge.
Technically cancer cells and cell cultures are human DNA as well, but we don't bat an eye about them being person or nonpersons. Besides, it's not even like the loss of a fetus is particularly unique to our intervention: 30-40% of pregnancies terminate due to spontaneous abortion in the first trimester, often as a result of severe genetic abnormalities.

lewd pic

Who gives a shit about "humanity"? You're assigning some special significance to minor differences in DNA, despite not caring about having these differences be manifested in development.

I don't give a shit and it's not relevant to socialism.

Under socialism there is basically no reason to have an abortion.

Yes.
Man, that was an easy question. Got any more, OP?

Stalin did forced pregnancies as part of trying to force an industrial revolution by increasing workforce. In developed countries you can't even apply that same logic at all and same for undeveloped countries because they have no shortage of fertility rates at all.

Ban it like Stalin did. Praise Jesus.

We should ban abortion as part of a larger program to advance cultural Marxism through compulsory homosexuality.

Do you really think there is no difference between a parasite and a human being user?
you can't be serious.

I've always been for it but ever since I heard about how an abortion was done It's been irking me lately. I still say yes though.

is this a joke?

Abortion would cease to be a problem under Communism. I see no reason for it to be permitted (under communism) by any government except maybe for medical reasons.

Of fucking course they should

10/10 qt btw

christfags strike again

you have no idea what kind of diseases or complications could pop up in the next thousand years that would render child birth dangerous

banning something is almost never the answer

happy to see a dissenting religious voice on here but my god you are doing chritians a disservice by bagging on about this

It shouldn't be permitted under capitalism too you fucking heretic baal lover.

Is there a non-pregnant version? I need it for masturbatory purposes.

Fuck the soviet union and fuck tankies

Why not exactly?

in communism we are making happy workers for the future, but in capitalism, we are forcing misserable women to have kids, that will undoubtedly en up as a literal slave.
so abortion should only be forbiden under communism.

that wasn't an abortion you moron, that fetus is already dead, the guy poking it is making it move in the sac, it came from a car accident victim.

Allow it
Lenin > Stalin

Good info. This is part of a broader trend of communism/Stalinism leading to the usual largely toxic social conservatism.

Of course, most communists in the West gloss over this.

I believe the lives of individual organisms, even sapient ones, have almost zero inherent value. Death is a completely neutral outcome for an individual. Suffering on the other hand is something to be avoided at all costs. In most cases even painless, instant death causes suffering because friends and family will be hurt by the loss of a loved one. Extinction is also very bad because I believe there is inherent value in the existence of intelligent life in the universe. Anything which risks extinction is to be avoided.

Abortion is not really a problem as long as it can be done painlessly.

You're one step away from getting Buddhism pilled

Very well done, Sherlock.

If a boy is born to an old female (27+), they end up biologically inferior, unable to get a female partner in courtship culture due to having an unattractive mind and face.

Women who get abortions almost always end up having a baby during a midlife crisis, who is miserable and depressed due to his condition.

I would prefer abortion be illegal and unwanted babies go to foster homes than we continue on this suffering.

We should ban breeding

...

The point we are making is that capitalism is the cause of most if not all the material reasons why a woman might want to terminate her pregnancy.

Much of what might be considered a problem are things like costs across the board: food, medicine, clothes for the baby as he/she grows, as well as a healthy environment for them to grow in and an education. The biggest problem is that much of these costs are inflated due to private companies wanting to profit, and women sometimes having to work full time and take care of the kids. It's exhausting.

Socialism and later FALC would help with this not by simply giving handouts/welfare payments, but actually reducing the cost of living for such people, allowing them to take care of their children full time. Fucking feudalism and guilds were better at raising their kids than capitalism today: education was done usually at home and husband and wife and kids could usually take over for each other, even in the peasant hovels.

We are forced to endure social conditions that were deliberately set up to punish us if we stepped out of line; not merely obvious things like we are free to either work or starve, but that when we work in the capitalist mode of production, it makes us depressed and stupid. Then shitty food and lead in the water and and cheap housing takes its toll. What do you fucking think is going to happen then?

Ban it for Aryans like Hitler did

Mass abortion for all Aryans now

abortion mandatory for anyone that isn't white

Abortion mandatory for all whites

...

There is a link between outlawing of abortion an increase in crime. Unwanted children more often grow up to be unwanted criminals.

Surely capitalism has nothing to do with that

It is part of it but not all of it. Capitalism only influences the link of poverty and crime but not parental neglect or abuse.

Are you having a fucking giggle

For the record, Correlation != Causation.

Poverty can make people be more abusive sure but you're an idiot and classist if you think only poor people can be bad parents.

It's not natalism, you moron. Having family is a human right.

If you haven't noticed, women give birth to babies all the time and they actually WANT for it to be comfortable: to have nurseries, kindergartens, alimonies, medicine, and whatever else is there.

No. It does take a lot of brainwashing to believe that policies that help half of the population are implemented because there is some conspiracy, not because most people in democratic Socialist state actually consider it useful and necessary.

If you want natalist policies, you do not support contraception, nor you do support female employment. Soviets did the opposite: there was a lot of contraception, and there was no attempts to discourage female employment (unlike Reich, for example).

What preface?

If you have the actual law, then read it:
> 1. In view of the proven harm of abortions, ….

Did it went down to zero? No? Then what are you trying to prove here? And what numbers are you even quoting?

Also, it's not about legalization. This is the period when abortion was performed in hospitals by actual professionals and was paid for by the state, rather than performed by some suspicious grannies at home.

The more abortion the better.

i love me some dead baby's

...

Are you against banning drugs too?

...

You're right. We should ban pornography too since it's not helping people have sex and bring outer population up!

What if she wants to terminate her pregnancy for spiritual reasons?

I just love pol's plethora of theories for not having a gf. Low testosterone, your stupid woman mother had you too late, women are whores only in for it the money, etc. Anything but your personal responsibility, naturally.

...

IMO the state should pay women for having abortions to encourage them and to lessen the taboo and shame associated with them.

Do you live in the middle east or something?

Eastern Europe.

Same thing really.

Which also seems to be a major motivation with many guys being against abortion. They want to punish others for having what they dont.

How about material conditions.


I mean, I cannot get a job that I can afford to live on my own to literally save my life.

Funny, lots of females who've never had abortions feel more qualified to speak on them then males who've never had abortions.


If you cannot find a job, how do you find opportunities to have unprotected sex?

Nah.

Womens are demons. DEMONS!

Did you forget?

That's what I am getting at, that's why I don't (and never have had) a gf.

First response is for both posts.

then explain women against abortion

I dont understand how your remark about how women feeling more qualified than men to talk about abortions has something to do with my comment asking if you live in the middle east.

Should fetuses have the right to abort their mommies? Of course not.
So why would you allow it the other way around? Because you think that it is easier to get away with killing the weak and fragile.

If you ask me, this is very unsocialist from all of you and you should all feel bad.

Think about this way, if you are still not convinced: do you want to go to heaven or to hell after you die, right? Of course you all want to go to heaven. Well now, thanks to the genocide of children you all seem to cheer for, heaven is littered with kids who can't even talk yet. Would you want to go to a crowded heaven where speechless fetuses fly by you with their little aborted colibri wings all the time? Thought so.

Next time you think it is ok to kill people, maybe think it through.

You're fucking retarded if you think capitalism doesn't influence parental neglect or abuse.

...

lol

Well that video is condescending as hell towards supposed "southerners".

No wonder they vote republican. At least they don't spit in their face directly, they do it indirectly.

...

Religious bullshit.

Every.
Fucking.
Time.

One Texan commie flips, more like.

...

Go back to your swine friends, piglet.

Excuse me for making fun of dumb, rightist counter-revolutionary retards. This board makes fun of liberals caught up in idpol fucking vigorously, but make fun of republicans caught up in idpol and all of a sudden it's high treason.

Nice meme.

Yes, so is not having a large family.

The rest of the law would do just fine in supporting that right to the former with or without the abortion ban hindering the latter. However, the ban on abortion makes ensures that, in the failure or absence of contraceptives, one is then forced to be shackled to family care. The abortion section is entirely unnecessary if providing women with better childcare prospects is the intended goal, especially when the subsequent ban on abortion resulted in child and mother health problems among many of those who then attempted abortion and failed or did so improperly, resetting much of the progress made on the matter.

Again, that would have been accomplished just fine if everything except the abortion ban were implemented.

Literally the part of the document describing the rationale of the laws before going point-by-point as to what was being mandated.

Protection of Women and Children in Soviet Russia E.P. Dutton, 1932. (inb4 "propaganda;" he spoke very highly of the effects of the legalization)
marxists.org/reference/archive/field-alice/protect/ch04.html
The rate of abortion-related deaths per procedure in hospitals, as far as sources imply, did not change significantly between those years, nor did the rate of abortions decrease. Rather, that decrease in mortality is almost entirely due to the fact that hospitals were then overseeing and performing the procedure more than illegal non-professionals. That was a mortality decrease that was subsequently loss when the ban was re-implemented. That was fine for the 40.8% of abortions that were due to medical causes and were still covered by the new law, but did nothing for the 59.2% that were due to other reasons that were then deprived of the right and medical facilities for their needs.
Was there still a health risk? Yes: almost all medical procedures have risks, and doctors were instructed even while abortions were freely legal to inform patients of the health risks of the procedure.

Important to note within the context of the 1920's:
Contraceptives at this time were spotty at best when it came to preventing pregnancy. Abortions are an absolute method of preventing a child coming to term, thus their availability was ultimately the decider of whether women had true reproductive freedom. That's different today, but not given the technology of the time. "Just use contraceptives" was not an effective long-term plan for allowing reproductive control, and that's not even touching on the problems of contraceptive availability in the first place; doctors knew this, state policy makers knew this.

Yes, and that's what the initial legalization stipulated:
The "suspicious grannies" thing was still illegal under the original law, and the availability of healthcare within the Soviet Union was only getting better as it developed out of the revolutionary phase. There was no reason to then ban abortions in not-at-risk cases when it just meant those women would go right back to those aforementioned "suspicious grannies." You can't have your cake and eat it too: you can't claim that this has to do with women's health and well-being, then take away the relatively safe method for undergoing a procedure that was going to happen anyways. If you want to justify the ban based on moralist reasons, then by all means do so: the lawmakers creating the ban had no issue in doing so, but at least be honest about it.

Get your head out of the fucking dumpster; the rotten food appears to be stuffing up the cavity where your brain should be.

ayy

There's a difference between comfortable college liberals getting asshurt over pronouns and impoverished working people suffering because of the false consciousness foisted on them and cultivated by the system that oppresses them.

Do dead sperm and ovum go to heaven? Does a dead zygote go to heaven?

Use fucking contraceptions!

how does geaven work in your mind? You go there as however old your body was and you stay that age forever? That must suck if you are 90 and rail when you die, while the 20 year old that died young is running around the clouds, flying everywhere, having a ball. Who knows, maybe fucking angel pussy day and night.

Here's a question for you, do you believe the soul starts at the moment of conception? If not, when?

Wrong.


A weak and fragile fetus is not the same as a weak and fragile fully grown human.


Wrong.

Based. Also kek pic.

This. pro-lifefags need to read Schopenhauer.

Do you even logic?

If "everything except the abortion ban" is not natalist, you can't use it to prove natalism of the abortion ban.

One decree (set of laws) can address multiple issues at once. This decree was dealing with maternity and put all related laws in one package. As I've pointed out earlier, abortion restrictions begun in 1934.

Unless I'm missing something, your "document" is an article in some Soviet newspaper. You certainly can refer to some newspaper to prove that someone had such an opinion within USSR, but it hardly makes it official position.

Actual laws are given later. And rationale within actual laws is "proven harm".

What are you talking about? People could give child to adoption, no?

And if you want to go all moralistic with fantasies hypothetical situations, what about women that were forced by their spouses/lovers to abort children?

> ban on abortion makes ensures that, in the failure or absence of contraceptives
I had explicitly pointed out that contraceptives of every variety were available. Why do you persistently post the same thing over and over again?


I call bullshit. In 1936 that would be condoms, two types of cervical caps, and three types of chemical contraception. All widely available and expressly advertised in Soviet newspapers and journals - alongside usual medicine, yes.

Even "spotty" 5% pregnancy chance per year (if not less) means 95% pregnancies get prevented. Abortions are for some (not everyone) of the remaining 5%. This impact on birthrate is minor, compared to the overall impact of contraceptives.

One rubber factory (let's say, the one that went operational in 1936 - in time to deal with the increased demand of condoms - and - for additional hilarity - overseen by none other than Beria himself) would be enough to surpass impact from the ban on abortions several times over. I already foresee your "unbiased" approach that leads to "logical" conclusion that Beria was given secret order by Stalin to sneak into factory at night and pierce every condom with a needle.

Just like pre-WWII abortions are not an effective long-term plan for living.

Your own source claims ~1% chance of death in state hospitals (and doesn't mention health problems).

Moreover, your previous ( ) post is clearly wrong. Decrease of mortality from 42% to 14% within 4 years (1923-1927) has nothing to do with legalization of abortion. Abortion was essentially legalized (abolition of punishment) in 1917.

Goalposts. Put them back. We are discussing this:
> the only reason Stalin had it banned was because, like Ceaușescu, he became fixated on encouraging population growth.
It wasn't Stalin, and it wasn't the reason.

Where is a woman's right to control her body by being able to refuse sex in the first place? When the problem of unemployment comes up, progressives shame those who would rather not engage in "survival sex." Instead they should provide ways to get people employed, especially since progressives are the ones encouraging them to go to college.

Tankies are fucking retarded holy shit.

The laws individually, including the abortion ban, are not explicitly natalist or antinatalist on their own. In conjunction however, they are greater than the sum of their parts and lead to a fundamentally pro-natalist outcome: less pregnancies purposely terminated and more state support for childcare.

Yes, which with restriction on reproductive control creates a natalist package of laws.

Which still requires the birthing process, which as I will mention in a later point, is not without significant risk.

What about those who were forced to carry a child to term by their spouses/lovers? Under the ban, they don't have any recourse if they can't prove that the child was conceived out of rape or have other pre-existing health conditions that qualify them. Enforcement against coerced abortions might have even been fine on its own, but you have yet to justify why a full-range ban on non-medically related abortions would be justifiable alongside it.

Lets compare that to the maternal mortality rate at the time. I don't have the stats for the USSR at the time, but I do have it for Britain
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633559/
Maternal mortality around 1936 was ~4.5% per live birth. Now before you go on about the superiority of the Soviet medical system, lets say Soviet hospitals are twice as good as the British equivalent and say that maternal mortality is ~2% per live birth (which is being generous). That still makes abortion in state hospitals (0.79% mortality) 2.5 times safer than a live birth. That not taking into account other health complications that often arise after birth, which can be quite serious.

"Essentially legalized" is not legalized, and the use of state hospitals for the procedures (after the 1920 law) was key to the success of the legalization in the realm of women's health. My point is that both state hospital involvement AND the procedure as a whole for non-urgent cases was completely pulled.

Yet a 1989 report STILL laments the fact that contraceptives are not nor had ever been widely available to the Soviet public.
popline.org/node/647573
Which doesn't address the problems of distribution and production numbers, nor the efficacy of the earlier models of condoms, nor the material used in the condom, nor the quality standards of the production in Soviet factories.
Which even today have a failure rate of ~10% (again, if we're being generous). Again, nothing on distribution either.
Which were fairly new, not widely available, often dangerous in their early forms. These were not the hormonal treatments we have today.
And even with all that you still fail to justify why abortion would not also be legal alongside the supposed availability of contraceptives for instances when those measures fail.

95% is not the total number of pregnancies that are prevented due to contraceptives (not explicitly; other factors play into that figure), it is the chance that the given contraceptive will prevent a pregnancy in a given sexual encounter. Statistically (under those conditions) if a woman has sex 20 times, one of those encounters would be likely result in pregnancy. At the individual level, that means that pregnancy is still not something that is functionally avoidable and that includes all the health risks that go with it being brought to term. Under those circumstances, it stands to reason that abortion would be left open as an option (and a statistically safer option at that until the 1950s, at least when compared to the mortality of 1920's abortion procedures) if women's choice and health were priority.

Just like childbirth is not an effective long-term plan for living, at least by your guidelines of clinical risk assessment.

I've already pointed out that the laws in question produce natalist outcomes. You have thus far failed to give any other rationale on why the ban on abortion would be included in an otherwise fair law increasing support for mothers and families other than thinly-veiled moralism and claims of inherent health risk despite the fact that the numbers show that abortion was STILL safer than proceeding with live births.

Also
Holy shit that is some paranoid delusion. Why don't you just fuck off to >>>/marx/ or /r/FULLCOMMUNISM already: you'd be in far better company among the other LARPers.

This would've looked a tiny bit more persuasive, if not for the rest of your post. I mean, I can understand honest mistakes. But this goes on and on and on. It's way beyond anything reasonably possible.


Your current argumentation boils down to proving that abortion is safer than live birth (i'm not going to touch your Cold War propaganda with a stick). It's a retarded idea, but let's pretend that you don't know better.


For starters, your data is clearly wrong. You took graph (Figure 1) and "estimated" 4.5% MMR in 1936 from it. But it's clearly 10 times larger that it should've been.

Even your own source contradicts your graph:
1) Table 1 has 0.5% (5 per 1000) total for 1800-1850 - ten times less than Figure 1 shows for the period.
2) Figure 2 (Puerperal pyrexia) provides death rate of ~1 per 1000 birth (0.1%) in 1936, with text specifically mentioning it as one of the primary causes. Doesn't make a lick of sense, if total rate is 4.5% as you claim.


Now, to confirm validity of my point (error in your Figure 1) I would like to provide a different source. It's practically the same thing: ajcn.nutrition.org/content/72/1/241s.full

Specifically for you - picrelated. It's Figure 1 from there. As you see, it has 400 per 100,000 - 0.4%, not 4%.

Now, I can continue with additional sources, but it should be clear that you found the only semi-official article with a mistake, concentrated on this article alone at the exclusion of other sources (even wiki puts "standard" maternal deaths at 1%), and on this mistake within article.

I can pretend it was a coincidence that you found this article. I even can pretend it was a coincidence that you didn't read your own article and accidentally found the only mistake there was. But what did you do next? Looking at how abortion-related deaths decreased 50 times in hospitals, you "generously" (your words, not mine) allowed death rate (the one that was 10 larger than it was) for live birth to decrease 2 times.

You probably could pretend that you thought that British en masse were giving births in hospitals at in 1930s (which was not the case even in 50s), but this is the third time it happens with just this argument. And then we the rest of the post that is equally deliberate in retardation.

So - yeah. You clearly had no intention to check if abortion was actually safer and healthier than birth. You wanted to prove it. Just as was the case with your other arguments.

Nope. I don't think it is. Unless you are getting paid to shill (and I don't really believe in COINTELPRO operating on Holla Forums), you are deliberately refusing to assess facts that might challenge your belief in Evil USSR and deliberately misinterpret any facts that you are presented with.

I'm sure, you can come up with something that will rationalize this away (ironic shitposting, for example), but this counts as being brainwashed in my books.

Mandatory abortions NOW!

Yeah, it shouldn't be restricted. I have a personal objection to it, and I would try to talk any loved one's out of it, but in the end it's their choice. Banning it would just make it more dangerous, and all of the moral arguments from the pro-life are also pretty spooky tbh.

Plus, if we create a society without the conditions that lead women to consider abortions (poverty mainly), and without the social conservatism that has not only restricted contraception and proper sexual education, but has also kept gay couples from adopting, I would guess that the number of abortions would probably be at an all time low.

Eventually, with Fully Automated Luxury Space Queer Anarcho-Communism, we may even have the technology to bring a fetus to term even after removing it from the mother, but that's just speculating, so I don't really know.

I really hate how guys moralize a fetus. Until it is born a fetus is literally no different from any other part of a woman's body.

Sounds pretty good to me,

Are you guys being serious here?

That is a bit off. Before 20 weeks it's just a part of their own body hough, yes but not after 20 weeks when it has a conciousness. However at that late in pregnancy the only reason abortions happen is from a deformity being discovered or if is life threatening.

There are alot of insecure pol and former polcucks here.

Don't listen to the retards. They are the most vocal.

We should make abortions mandatory and have "Greybeard" periods where no children are born for generations.

….
why

To spice things up.