Should 20-40% of Male Babies Be Aborted?

[Tsar]

@Outcast9428 Abortion was mostly a clickbait title to start the discussion about reducing number of males born. I shared the science behind altering men's ability to have sons on the level of the spermatozoa so male sperm with the Y Chromosome becomes unviable or men only produce X Chromosome sperm. Therefore both abortion and IVF both become unnecessary because some men will only be able to produce female offspring. The sex of a child is determined by the father's sperm that impregnates a female. All females give the X (female) chromosome. It's men that give either an X (female) or Y (male).

X+X=XX=Female
X+Y=XY=Male

Therefore, if some men cannot produce Y Chromosome Sperm because of an injection, then it changes the ratio of males and females being born.

I am not really in favor of abortion unless it's a truly last resort "Final Solution" to solve a very serious issue. The point is that if it's necessary to kill males so the surviving males can get a virgin female, then it's absolutely necessary to make the sacrifice.

We can let the babies be aborted as a Final Solution if it was absolutely necessary, or have a King Herod type Biblical cull later on, except the government will dispatch the army on a random date to gender-segregated schools or to homes in the middle of the night and kill all 40% of boys at age 11 which is before they really have serious hormones and a desire for a girlfriend. Those would be the only legitimate ways to fix the excess male problem if it wasn't solved with injections to solve it at the Spermatozoa level before conception of offspring. I agree that abortions is unnecessary and cruel, which is why I figure the slaughter of 40% of boys at age 11 is much better. It also gives the military the ability to prove absolute loyalty and obedience. If they can kill a child in their own nation, they can kill anyone else in the nation and they can easily kill foreigners and foreign children. Which is effective if there was ever an Imperial Roman style invasion and subsequent genocide of another nation or ethnic cleansing.

The way things exist, there are too many excess men in the world. There is not enough females even in the best case scenario from historic eras.

Men should not be forced to become a Cucks or be single because they can't get a virgin female. Also, females shouldn't be allowed to have a partner if they don't marry young. They can marry a foreigner or go to a sperm bank.

Mainstream Conservatives are just as guilty as Liberals in destroying traditional values in females. They share half the blame. It's not only Liberals that undermined traditionalism. Conservatives were seeking to mostly conserve economic principles from their era and their eras dominant societal values. Fornication undermines civilization if all men that want a virgin female cannot get a virgin female.

[Tsar]

Western society and Modern society are effectively polygamous and not in the traditional polygynous way. This might interest @Cornfed and @Outcast9428
https://www.childtrends.org/news-releas ... -one-woman

@Outcast9248 Assuming we do have a society with universal traditional monogamy, then we need a way to guarantee a virgin female in her prime to all men. The social contract is a virgin female for all men. All men that want or will eventually want a virgin, must be able to have one. If 500,000 men only eat a virgin and that means 500,000 non-virgin females will be permanently single or as friends with benefits, then the non-virgins brought that on themselves by choosing to fornicate.

Serial monogamy isn't traditional monogamy.

From what I understand now, I assume you are advocating for serial monogamy with total monogamy in a relationship and after marriage. However, @Cornfed is probably advocating traditional monogamy where a girl must be a virgin to be worthy of qualifying for a relationship and marriage.

I believe that the only truly traditional society must make traditional monogamy where girls are virgins for the guy they will marry as the dominate form and the social norm.

Of serial monogamy is the mainstream conservative value, then mainstream conservatives aren't traditional because they support the Sexual Revolution just like liberals do. The virginity of a female is the greatest method of determining a girl's worth for a genuine relationship and marriage. Modern mainstream conservatives aren't traditional and that's why I don't see anything worth supporting because it's mostly half-measures or it won't fix anything for people currently alive, especially men who want to see real rapid change. We need someone like a Hitler or Strasser who can solve everything rapidly.

Excess females are necessary to provide men with the ease of getting a virgin female.

Real traditional societies must provider men with the greatest ease and a guarantee of obtaining at least one virgin female in her prime. No society is traditional unless men can get a virgin female in her prime.

No society is traditional unless females lose their virginity with the guy they marry and no society is traditional when females marry at an average age of 24-30. Any unmarried childless female at age 30+ should be executed much like @Cornfed has mentioned in the past, although, I would be more humane, and suggest a Work Camp like a Gulag, or just force them to birth offspring by inducing them into comas and keeping them as forced incubators. Once they're age 40 and unsuitable to use as human incubators for IVF, then send them to a Work Camp. Collective Farming or manufacturing or textile manufacturing should be easy enough for females. Maybe baking and cooking will also be good. After age 60, the females can be paroled from the Gulag, and work in society again. They can be cooks, have bakeries, or work in restaurants to support themselves. They can also be maids or servants.

[Lucas88]

If you like his idea then you clearly are supporting abortion.

No I'm not. Lol!

Supporting abortion is something entirely different from simply believing that in the future we should use scientific intervention to correct the sex ratio of births in nature and thereby increase the number of females. The fact that you have attempted to equate them here shows just how much of a dishonest liar and delusional fantasist you are and why nobody here should ever take you seriously. I'm sorry but you're making yourself look like an hysterical fool.

If police and military are a small minority of the country then why do all men need to be trained in combat? Our society agrees that those skills are only necessary for a small number of men, but you want all men to do it.

I have a problem with males being required to violate their conscience in order to get a woman. A good man will not respect or trust a woman who's p***y tingles when he's beating up another man or showing how capable he is of doing so.

Who agrees that only a small number of men should learn combat skills exactly? Plenty of men clearly don't agree with that. That's why you have martial arts schools and self-defense classes everywhere. It's also why many Americans affirm the second amendment and own firearms and even train with them on the shooting range. In truth, many masculine men still perceive a need to train, learn how to fight and develop their ability to protect themselves, their woman and their loved ones.

At the same time, many women still like tough men because they like to feel protected. It's part of their female psychological makeup. It's not just about "p***y tingles".

I've explained this to you before. You seem to be utterly incapable of discerning between constructive martial discipline (e.g., martial arts training, self-defense programs, combat sports, etc.) from mindless violence. @Pixel--Dude and I have told you many times: we don't advocate for mindless violence or war for its own sake; we are martial artists and practice our discipline for noble purposes such as self-defense and the defense of our loved ones. That obviously includes any girlfriends or wives that we might have. But you simply cannot fathom this important difference due to your own ignorance and stubbornness.

Women as the physically weaker sex need to be protected by men. That's why many women are attracted to strong men who have the ability to protect them and dislike weak men. A man worth his salt must know how to protect his woman should a violent threat arise. Conversely, a man who isn't able to handle such a threat is worthless. What would you do if a crazy methhead physically attacked you and your girlfriend while you were walking home one night? Would you know how to defend yourself and your girlfriend? Would you have the physical attributes to do so? A man has to develop his strength and psychological fortitude and learn how to fight and protect. Women by and large seek that in a man and value such masculine qualities. You and many other guys would do much better putting down the PlayStation and instead hitting the gym, strengthening the body, cultivating athleticism and doing martial arts training. Men should be strong and disciplined.

[Pixel--Dude]

You're not just dispassionately stating facts, you clearly want that to be the way the world is. And morals are not contingent on what is natural or unnatural. In-fact, a lot of what it means to be moral is doing what is unnatural. It is fundamentally "unnatural" to cooperate on the level that modern humans do. Putting aside many of their own self-interests for the greater good. Animals do not do that. Chimpanzees, our closest relative, definitely do not do that. The natural world is a brutal competition. But that doesn't mean its right and it certainly doesn't mean that its something we ought to aspire to. The greatest mission of mankind, in-fact, is to overcome the natural world and basically bend it to our will. You seem to support that idea on a technological basis, but oddly enough, not on a social basis.

You seem to be of the belief that human beings are somehow above nature and separate from it. This is not the case. Whether we like it or not, humanity is a part of nature and is not independent of it. Most of what we need is provided by mother nature. This is why we call her mother nature, because she provides and nourishes all.

Animals are cooperative. You are wrong there. They do what they have to do to survive. The same like humanity. Animals cooperate with members of their own species and sometimes with animals of differing species and if they didn't they would die. The crocodile and the bird that eats the shit from between its teeth, or the spider and the frog. The spider eats things that tries to eat the frog and in return the frog eats things that try to eat the spiders eggs.

You say nature is a harsh competition and we should try to transcend this. Where I agree to a certain extent, I do find your own views somewhat contradictory. You think cutthroat capitalism and toxic individualism promoted by this ethos of getting ahead and trampling over everyone else as something positive. All the mental illness, depression and suicide this shit causes isn't in any way healthy or natural! Modern society isn't cooperative at all. Most people will f**k each other over for a little bit of money.

What is natural is growth. Everything in nature strives to grow and flourish and survive. These are natural and what is natural can be associated with morality. So when @Lucas88 talks about self improvement like martial arts and such, his philosophy is in alignment with what is prevalent throughout all nature. Surely what is natural would be moral and what is unnatural would be immoral.

Humanity will always have belligerent individuals who wish to cause harm unto others. That's always been the way. No matter what system we implement. Let's say you had your perfect traditionalist society when the current system collapses, how would your society of moralistic pacifists respond to a hostile group attacking your settlements? How will you defend the people you love without any knowledge of martial arts or self defence? Self defence and discipline is very different to mindless acts of barbarism and unnecessary violence. The point we have consistently tried to make is that cultivation of the warrior spirit is a necessity to fight off other groups of a more belligerent nature. Let's not pretend such groups don't exist. Because they always have and always will.

If men followed your advice, on mass, the standards would just endlessly rise. Your advice was mainstream during the 1980s and 1990s. What quickly happened is that women's standards just became absurdly high. The MeToo movement is no different from your advice... All MeToo is, is a more intense shit-test that men have been told to pass. To weed out more men. It tests for men who are so dominant they don't even care if aggressively approaching women is stigmatized or could potentially result in legal penalties. The standard used to just be "approach women and seduce them," eventually it became "approach women and seduce them even if it runs the risk of destroying your life." At that point, a lot of guys basically said f**k it, I'm not playing this game anymore. Now we want a system that actually works and doesn't put men on an endless treadmill of satisfying endlessly rising female standards.

I think a cold approach is a viable way to meet women, or it should be at least. It's never worked for me because I am socially awkward with women. I've always preferred getting to know women as a friend before engaging in any romance with them. That's just how I am.

Some individuals like @WilliamSmith can approach women and have the charisma and charm to win them over with the cold approach. That doesn't mean he's immoral. He is a self proclaimed gentleman who cares about the wellbeing of women and acknowledges that their desires are important. Surely you don't think that makes a man a feminist? You have a girlfriend, don't you? Isn't her wellbeing and happiness important to you?

Women should be respected, so long as they show respect in return. It's a two way street. I am courteous and respectful to anyone who shows me the same courtesy.

I don't think this society is good for human relationships. People are too individualistic in a toxic way and the dissemination of harmful ideological currents only furthers the divide between men and women. It's sad and I wish it wasn't this way.

If a lot of women weren't brainwashed by feminism or career driven and brainwashed by capitalism and the acquisition of wealth then there wouldn't be as much of a divide between the sexes.

I don't think your ideal traditionalist society is an adequate solution either. All that would do is shift the balance of social power from women to the men and we'd have a site full of angry women talking about how they don't want to be forced into prostitution or marriage with a man they don't love and how they should find happiness abroad

Tsar's idea is not a good solution. Polygyny is evil, and that includes polygyny which has been artificially designed to be universally possible for all men.

I wouldn't go as far as to call Polygyny evil just because it is something I don't agree with. Personally I prefer monogamy to polygyny. But that's just my personal preference.

[Lucas88]

I don't think your ideal traditionalist society is an adequate solution either. All that would do is shift the balance of social power from women to the men and we'd have a site full of angry women talking about how they don't want to be forced into prostitution or marriage with a man they don't love and how they should find happiness abroad

No, they wouldn't. Such dissatisfied women wouldn't have the luxury of expressing their discontent on some site like HA because they would be deemed "subversives" and denied access to any form of decent employment or resources within a Jewdeo-Christian tradcon social credit system like the one that China wants to implement. I suppose that the horseshoe theory of political ideologies really is true after all!

[Lucas88]

I am not really in favor of abortion unless it's a truly last resort "Final Solution" to solve a very serious issue. The point is that if it's necessary to kill males so the surviving males can get a virgin female, then it's absolutely necessary to make the sacrifice.

We can let the babies be aborted as a Final Solution if it was absolutely necessary, or have a King Herod type Biblical cull later on, except the government will dispatch the army on a random date to gender-segregated schools or to homes in the middle of the night and kill all 40% of boys at age 11 which is before they really have serious hormones and a desire for a girlfriend. Those would be the only legitimate ways to fix the excess male problem if it wasn't solved with injections to solve it at the Spermatozoa level before conception of offspring. I agree that abortions is unnecessary and cruel, which is why I figure the slaughter of 40% of boys at age 11 is much better. It also gives the military the ability to prove absolute loyalty and obedience. If they can kill a child in their own nation, they can kill anyone else in the nation and they can easily kill foreigners and foreign children. Which is effective if there was ever an Imperial Roman style invasion and subsequent genocide of another nation or ethnic cleansing.

The way things exist, there are too many excess men in the world. There is not enough females even in the best case scenario from historic eras.

@Tsar

I do believe that your initial idea to increase the ratio of females through the manipulation of the father's sperm is a brilliant idea and a practical way to mitigate the incel problem; however, I think that you're going off the rails when you talk about the supposed need for a King Herod type biblical cull or your desire to have 40% of all boys at age 11 massacred. I don't know whether you're just trolling or whether you're actually serious about what you're saying, but no, I don't agree with such heavy-handed and brutal tactics. Not only would it be supremely heinous but would also create resentment among the populace and increase opposition to whatever regime one might be trying to establish.

At the same time, I recognize the long-term unsustainability of an overpopulated world and the subsequent need to get the population down to a much more sustainable number. Nevertheless, I believe that it should be done gradually over generations and without recourse to heavy-handed measures like through a one-child policy in conjunction with social programs of voluntary sterilization for the child-free hedonistic types as well as for the R-selected hood rat types who would otherwise pump out 9 kids with 9 different baby mamas. Meanwhile, strong, fit and intelligent men should be encouraged to breed with hot and athletic females. Even though this all may sound rather eugenic, it should be presented as a noble campaign to overcome the problem of overpopulation and resource depletion and thereby ensure a sustainable future.

I personally don't advocate for genocide at all. Rather I support a much softer and largely voluntary series of policies for population reduction and then the institution of the kind of female ratio increase through medical technologies that you've proposed. I have no problem with killing true evildoers like the Jewish elite and their collaborators but I draw the line at innocent people.

But the above proposal is probably already a moot point. The current elite has already rolled out its potentially deadly vaccines and in some countries more than 80% of the population has more or less unquestioningly accepted them. Some people like @Cornfed speculate that there may be a mass die-off. If this is true, then the current elite will have culled a large part of the population in a rapid and totally brutal fashion - not something I agree with, by the way. Some people warned of the dangers. Unfortunately, many people were stupid enough to accept a shady vaccine that is being aggressively promoted by known psychopaths and elite criminals.

[Tsar]

I am not really in favor of abortion unless it's a truly last resort "Final Solution" to solve a very serious issue. The point is that if it's necessary to kill males so the surviving males can get a virgin female, then it's absolutely necessary to make the sacrifice.

We can let the babies be aborted as a Final Solution if it was absolutely necessary, or have a King Herod type Biblical cull later on, except the government will dispatch the army on a random date to gender-segregated schools or to homes in the middle of the night and kill all 40% of boys at age 11 which is before they really have serious hormones and a desire for a girlfriend. Those would be the only legitimate ways to fix the excess male problem if it wasn't solved with injections to solve it at the Spermatozoa level before conception of offspring. I agree that abortions is unnecessary and cruel, which is why I figure the slaughter of 40% of boys at age 11 is much better. It also gives the military the ability to prove absolute loyalty and obedience. If they can kill a child in their own nation, they can kill anyone else in the nation and they can easily kill foreigners and foreign children. Which is effective if there was ever an Imperial Roman style invasion and subsequent genocide of another nation or ethnic cleansing.

The way things exist, there are too many excess men in the world. There is not enough females even in the best case scenario from historic eras.

@Tsar

I do believe that your initial idea to increase the ratio of females through the manipulation of the father's sperm is a brilliant idea and a practical way to mitigate the incel problem; however, I think that you're going off the rails when you talk about the supposed need for a King Herod type biblical cull or your desire to have 40% of all boys at age 11 massacred. I don't know whether you're just trolling or whether you're actually serious about what you're saying, but no, I don't agree with such heavy-handed and brutal tactics. Not only would it be supremely heinous but would also create resentment among the populace and increase opposition to whatever regime one might be trying to establish.

At the same time, I recognize the long-term unsustainability of an overpopulated world and the subsequent need to get the population down to a much more sustainable number. Nevertheless, I believe that it should be done gradually over generations and without recourse to heavy-handed measures like through a one-child policy in conjunction with social programs of voluntary sterilization for the child-free hedonistic types as well as for the R-selected hood rat types who would otherwise pump out 9 kids with 9 different baby mamas. Meanwhile, strong, fit and intelligent men should be encouraged to breed with hot and athletic females. Even though this all may sound rather eugenic, it should be presented as a noble campaign to overcome the problem of overpopulation and resource depletion and thereby ensure a sustainable future.

I personally don't advocate for genocide at all. Rather I support a much softer and largely voluntary series of policies for population reduction and then the institution of the kind of female ratio increase through medical technologies that you've proposed. I have no problem with killing true evildoers like the Jewish elite and their collaborators but I draw the line at innocent people.

But the above proposal is probably already a moot point. The current elite has already rolled out its potentially deadly vaccines and in some countries more than 80% of the population has more or less unquestioningly accepted them. Some people like @Cornfed speculate that there may be a mass die-off. If this is true, then the current elite will have culled a large part of the population in a rapid and totally brutal fashion - not something I agree with, by the way. Some people warned of the dangers. Unfortunately, many people were stupid enough to accept a shady vaccine that is being aggressively promoted by known psychopaths and elite criminals.

I'm just saying that given the options, scientific advancement and humane methods are preferable.

But as seen in dystopian films like Hunger Games and evidence of historical Roman brutality, during the initial construction of an empire, it would at least win. It's definitely evil but psychologically, it works to indoctrinate soldiers into brutality so they're more effective at imperialist wars and genocidal tactics because they crossed a line. The soldiers who follow through can be selected for missions requiring the skill set.

Obviously, I favor good methods but I do understand how evil methods would also work. Good and evil is largely about understanding human psychology. That's why I understand the playbook of the Elites and also understand history. People who ignore the evil options and their possibility will never truly able to imagine what the Elites could do. Instead of a King Herod type of event, they can be sent to Gulags, trained as Elite soldiers, and maybe released into other nations like vikings were. They can colonize, raid, overthrow other governments, kill mass numbers of the local men, and take foreign wives. Perfectly reasonable, especially of it's done in hostile nations. Aside from modern humanitarianism or to be completely, there's no genuine reason to attempt to be all good if good will not defeat the evil. Sometimes evil is necessary for good to triumph against a worse evil. True evil is also different than an evil committed to achieve good. It's like the concept of Yin Yang.

I just wrote the Herod type solution as an example of one option to show that given a choice of two evils, abortion of fetuses would probably be the lesser evil. Any resources, education, and emotional connection would be greatly used then wasted if years were spent with a child then a King Herod type thing happened. I do agree it's evil but it also does serve a legitimate psychological purpose as I mentioned, which while evil, does serve to make soldiers into more heartless soldiers willing to commit future atrocities by the fact that they would have committed one of the worst atrocities possible and have shown obedience. Much like the supposed myth about Nazi youth who were boys being ordered to kill their favorite pet, which I completely doubt since Hitler was into animal rights and did much to advance animal rights.

The only other real possibility is also evidenced in Roman History. If everyone of a national society is left alive, then other nations must be invaded. Wipeout all the males who are fight, capture all the girls and women necessary to provide a female to all men. Wipeout all the males that resist the army's plans. Even Jews are effectively using a variation of this to engage in usury and wipeout the nations of non-Jews.

The point that I am trying to make is that there are no completely good, ethical, and moral solutions to creating world peace. Someone, a group, or a category, or multiple categories will need to suffer so others don't. That suffering, blood, death, or reduction will always be able to end once the change had occurred.

Much like when I say if Jews were eliminated from Goyim nations, Israel didn't exist, and all Zionist Collaborators were executed. It's the only way to create a society capable of rapid advancement.

People cannot expect to defy nature and the natural order, yet still achieve their end vision. People cannot create a paradise and a great civilization without some blood, death, and destruction.

Only in a moral civilization where everyone will be guaranteed a good life, a male guaranteed at least one female, and without the Jewish/American/Anglo capitalism will people finally be able to live in peace and use mostly good methods. Until that happens, I completely believe that some "evil" methods are absolutely necessary. It's just which methods.

Sentimentality, morals, or subjective notions of goodness which don't matter if good ultimately loses? Lines must sometimes be crossed in a war.

Jahr Null or Year 0. Out with the old, in with the new.

Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum is a Latin legal phrase, meaning "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences.

I however don't care about the law, I only care about true justice.

[Tsar]

[Tsar]

https://incels.is/threads/why-we-are-fu ... nt.453795/

The researchers found that mothers over 40 had a 51 percent higher risk of having a child with autism than mothers 25 to 29, and a 77 percent higher risk than mothers under 25.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ernal-age/

[Outcast9428]

@Tsar Strict monogamy would be ideal but the point I’ve been trying to make is that it isn’t realistic until other circumstances are met. You need to restore arranged marriages. Until arranged marriages are restored, serial monogamy until marriage and then strict monogamy after marriage is the best case scenario. And that isn’t a part of the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution promoted casual sex. What I mentioned was what the norm was before the sexual revolution.

@Pixel--Dude

Capitalism is the only system that has actually succeeded at largely eliminating poverty. In the US, poverty would actually completely vanish if everybody got married. I don’t support individualism. I favor more of a balance between collectivist and individualist ideals but leaning more towards collectivism.

I don’t think nations should be pacifists. You can certainly have a standing military. But that doesn’t require all men to participate.

I also think it’s important for girls to be happy, but there’s no reason they can’t be happy with consensual arranged marriages. My girlfriend and I’s relationship is basically a semi-arranged marriage given that our parents set us up together. Encouraging the dating world to be a meat market of guys constantly approaching women and getting rejected dozens of times before finding a woman destroys average men’s self esteem and inflates women’s.

Men would have slightly more power in my system but women would still be protected. There would be harsh laws against domestic violence and rape. Every woman would get a husband. If they haven’t cultivated beauty or nurturing instincts then perhaps not the most physically attractive or successful man but they would have a man. In my system. Everyone would have a spouse, but how close your spouse is to your ideal depends on you. People would generally be taught traits that would make people better spouses though.

Like I said before, prostitution would be a completely voluntary choice. Girls would not be pressured to become prostitutes. It would simply be legal and easily available.

I have actually considered that in my system, men and women who cannot accept the system would be told to leave the country.

[Tsar]

Nonsense, Tsar. NO baby should be aborted. To kill an unborn life is to kill the world and to save an unborn life is to save the world. Spread love, not hate. Life is too short for hate.

It was a clickbait title to start a discussion about modifying the birthrate with injections to make a certain percentage of men only produce X Chromosome Spermatozoa and why society needs many more females than males.

[Cornfed]

An ironic thing about this is that probably a lot more male babies are currently being aborted.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

Nonsense, Tsar. NO baby should be aborted. To kill an unborn life is to kill the world and to save an unborn life is to save the world. Spread love, not hate. Life is too short for hate.

It was a clickbait title to start a discussion about modifying the birthrate with injections to make a certain percentage of men only produce X Chromosome Spermatozoa and why society needs many more females than males.

I don't think your plan will make a difference once Skynet gains sentience and plans to wipe out all humans.
Because they think all humans are inferior than them.

[Tsar]

An ironic thing about this is that probably a lot more male babies are currently being aborted.

No, that's completely incorrect. More female babies are being aborted.

Yes, Baby Girls Who Are “Unwanted” Because of Their Sex Are Aborted in America
https://www.heritage.org/life/commentar ... ed-america

Has the ‘Global War Against Baby Girls’ Come to America?
https://ifstudies.org/blog/has-the-glob ... to-america

Sex-selective abortions may have stopped the birth of 23 million girls
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... ion-girls/

[Tsar]

Females are more valuable than males. That's a biological fact of nature. That's why reducing male births will make no difference if 20% or 40% of males weren't born for a few generations. Society flourished after wars removed excess men. Wars aren't the necessary variable. Removing excess men is the necessary variable.