Should 20-40% of Male Babies Be Aborted?

[Tsar]

Female offspring must be favored. Only female offspring should be allowed with IVF.

Still, Guttmacher gets one thing right. Laws banning such abortion “do not prohibit other sex selection methods, such as sperm sorting or preimplantation genetic diagnostics,” also known as PGD.

With sperm sorting, the doctor “tests” the sperm to see if it has an X or Y chromosome. Since sperm decide the sex of an embryo, a family may choose to only use sperm with a Y chromosome. That way, they have a 70% chance of creating a male embryo (it’s not 100% because the sorting process can be difficult and isn’t always entirely successful in separating the sperm based on sex).

https://www.heritage.org/life/commentar ... ed-america

[Kalinago]

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.

All we can do is live our own lives the best we can my friend and just spread love, build a family, make friends and connect to other human beings. All else is vanity, useless distractions, and rubbish. Life is short. Debate is futile. Arguments, pointless. Enjoy every day. Life is far, far too brief as it is.

'build a family'is a distraction aswell.

by your logic,hedonism is the only path,and family is a privation of thrill and pleasure,and is routine and responsibility.

[fschmidt]

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 is always men who have f***ed a lot of women who preach love. Makes sense since they are then genetically invested in humanity. For men who are rejected by women, hate is the only logical position since humanity is contrary to our genetic interest. It would be best for us if all non-monogamous parts of humanity were exterminated.

[Kalinago]

'build a family'is a distraction aswell.

by your logic,hedonism is the only path,and family is a privation of thrill and pleasure,and is routine and responsibility.

It's hard to describe it. Life is just short. So much bitterness and hatefulness people carry around, it spoils it all. Like putting too much salt in a dish will destroy the taste. Aborted babies, enslaved women, people hating other races and faiths and whatever. It just feels so... pointless. I've seen the end, you know. Where it all leads. How fast it approaches. Maybe I am in a sentimental mood. But all of these discussions on this forum, none of it leads to any man experiencing more enjoyment, more fulfillment.

non-reciprocated love is suicidal,and hate is a good thing against parasites and people who's existance impedes your freedom and happiness.

hedonic treadmill will also kick in,fried dopamine receptors etc find a higher purpose alongside balanced enjoyment.

and some people like myself,enjoy hate and destruction of persons we despise.we get 'enjoyment'from it.

hatred of abominations is enjoyment to me.

there is a reason oskar dirlewanger is my biggest hero after Ammonius Sacchas.

the belief in oblivion after death logically leads to nihilism and depression though,so we cannot relate.

[fschmidt]

I'm retired from that lifestyle, retired from the pointless hedonistic chasing of cheap thrills. There is no part of me that desires it any longer. I just want to be a good father now. A good man. It's all so tiresome.

Yes, that's standard. Most Christian saints first f***ed lots of women, then repented, and then preached love. But they/you are already genetically invested, so love for humanity is logical.

As for hate, it is like salt; too much of it in a dish will spoil the taste. Too much hate, likewise, will ruin a man's life. I've never known a hateful man that was happy, satisfied with his life, fulfilled. Bitterness just prematurely ages and kills men. It's a burden, not an asset.

People should do what makes sense, not what makes one happy. Opium makes one happy but doesn't make sense. For men who were incel, hatred is the only thing that makes logical sense. This hatred should serve as a motivation to take useful action. Like screw people to make money, and support anything that helps to destroy the culture that caused incel. For us, any act of kindness to modern scum is a sin that should be avoided at all costs.

[Outcast9428]

@Tsar Your belief that wars were eliminating large portions of the male population in the past isn’t entirely accurate…



There’s actually more people per capita dying in wars now then there were in the 1400s and 1500s. In those centuries it appears that 5 people per 100,000 died each year. Over the course of 50 years, that is only 250 people per 100,000 dead. This comes out to 2.5 people per 1,000. Assuming everyone dying was male… this is only 0.5% of men killed in wars.

[Tsar]

@Tsar Your belief that wars were eliminating large portions of the male population in the past isn’t entirely accurate…



There’s actually more people per capita dying in wars now then there were in the 1400s and 1500s. In those centuries it appears that 5 people per 100,000 died each year. Over the course of 50 years, that is only 250 people per 100,000 dead. This comes out to 2.5 people per 1,000. Assuming everyone dying was male… this is only 0.5% of men killed in wars.

That chart doesn't go back to Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Assyria, Persia, Ancient China, Ancient Japan, the Babylonian Empire, etc. Also, can I read how they calculated the deaths? I need to read if there are surviving census reports or if they looked at death certificates from the surviving records to statistically estimate the deaths, or how it was calculated.

However, I'm mainly talking about the traditional time before Christianity made it so everyone remained virgins and before mass mobilization of all men to fight was a thing. It's a definite that men died much more often in battles with swords, shields, spears, and bows.

The world has effectively returned to the promiscuity of the most decadent and degenerate eras of history which is common with the decay of great civilizations, but at the same time they do nothing to make it easy for men to get a virgin female, which is what slavery accomplished in the Ancient World.

In ancient Rome, slaves could not legally marry, not even among each other. So to marry his slave, a Roman would first have to free her. This was actually one of the few exceptions in the Lex Aelia Sentia of 4 CE, which put limitations on all other kinds of manumissions. If the citizen wanted to do so, he would have to appear before a tribunal and state his case. The slave would then be declared free and the two could marry.

It was not unusual for male owners freeing and marrying female slaves. However, female mistresses freeing and marrying male slaves was frowned upon and in the later empire made illegal. Another prohibition existed for members of the senatorial aristocracy, who could not marry freed slaves either. They usually took them as concubines.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... ry_one_of/

Source: Grubbs, Judith: Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood. London and New York, Psychology Press, 2002 - ISBN 0415152402

Also, slavery was much more humane in many contexts in Ancient Rome, compared to the United States slavery. Here's a source:
https://wp.umpi.edu/utimes/2018/05/04/s ... ient-rome/

Only about 25% of men throughout history have ever reproduced offspring with a female.

This is a very significant number because it means 75% of men throughout history died childless, many of them also likely virgins.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

I think Tsar is some sort of a misandrist.

[Outcast9428]

@Tsar Your belief that wars were eliminating large portions of the male population in the past isn’t entirely accurate…



There’s actually more people per capita dying in wars now then there were in the 1400s and 1500s. In those centuries it appears that 5 people per 100,000 died each year. Over the course of 50 years, that is only 250 people per 100,000 dead. This comes out to 2.5 people per 1,000. Assuming everyone dying was male… this is only 0.5% of men killed in wars.

That chart doesn't go back to Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Assyria, Persia, Ancient China, Ancient Japan, the Babylonian Empire, etc. Also, can I read how they calculated the deaths? I need to read if there are surviving census reports or if they looked at death certificates from the surviving records to statistically estimate the deaths, or how it was calculated.

However, I'm mainly talking about the traditional time before Christianity made it so everyone remained virgins and before mass mobilization of all men to fight was a thing. It's a definite that men died much more often in battles with swords, shields, spears, and bows.

The world has effectively returned to the promiscuity of the most decadent and degenerate eras of history which is common with the decay of great civilizations, but at the same time they do nothing to make it easy for men to get a virgin female, which is what slavery accomplished in the Ancient World.

In ancient Rome, slaves could not legally marry, not even among each other. So to marry his slave, a Roman would first have to free her. This was actually one of the few exceptions in the Lex Aelia Sentia of 4 CE, which put limitations on all other kinds of manumissions. If the citizen wanted to do so, he would have to appear before a tribunal and state his case. The slave would then be declared free and the two could marry.

It was not unusual for male owners freeing and marrying female slaves. However, female mistresses freeing and marrying male slaves was frowned upon and in the later empire made illegal. Another prohibition existed for members of the senatorial aristocracy, who could not marry freed slaves either. They usually took them as concubines.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... ry_one_of/

Source: Grubbs, Judith: Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood. London and New York, Psychology Press, 2002 - ISBN 0415152402

Also, slavery was much more humane in many contexts in Ancient Rome, compared to the United States slavery. Here's a source:
https://wp.umpi.edu/utimes/2018/05/04/s ... ient-rome/

Only about 25% of men throughout history have ever reproduced offspring with a female.

This is a very significant number because it means 75% of men throughout history died childless, many of them also likely virgins.

Slaves were not treated better in Ancient Rome? Wtf? Slaves were executed every day. They threw them into snake pits. They were beaten constantly. Or they had to fight as gladiators where they’d often get raped… By other men.

You can just add up the death toll of every war fought in the era. Each war has been recorded. You just figure out how many people died in each war, add them together and distribute it through the years that war was waged.

[dubya]

I mean the meaning of "incel" is pretty skewed.

Nowadays it's most men in western society, including alot of married men in dead bedroom situations.

So it's not like "Oh. You're a genetic fuckup."

More like "Oh shit, this country is f***ed up."

I don't know if you guys have noticed, but birthrates across the world are crashing hard.

To answer the question, no I don't think anybody should "be aborted," or at least I don't wish that on anybody, it's a cruel and unfortunate fate sometimes for ectopic pregnancies and children with extreme birth defects.

As far as unrequited love being suicidal and hate being "necessary," I don't agree.

First of all there's more than enough hate to go around, which informs most of the collossally bad decisions within the global zeitgeist.

What's actually "necessary" is dealing with people in a firm and businesslike manner and not being a goofy nice guy all the time, or a butthurt salt-encrusted weenie.

Be firm and businesslike, "Are we f***ing? No? Ok then, nice to meet you, seeya later."

That's all you have to say, not be a butthurt little bitch or a salty munchkin or mr happy.

Just be firm, clearly state what you want, and keep it moving.

[Lucas88]

@Lucas88 doesn't understand that we don't live in the stone age anymore so strength isn't as important as intelligence. A smart autistic man has more of a chance of surviving and is better for society and raising a family than a dumb low IQ thug who only survives because of welfare, food stamps, public housing, etc. paid for by the "beta males" that Lucas88 likes to insult so much. If not for public assistance paid for with beta tax dollars then these so-called "alpha males" wouldn't survive in the modern era, they only had power when people were primitive. Modern women would choose to reproduce the dumb thug over the smart autistic guy but it's not because his genetics are better. It's also very stupid to assume that because a man is more popular with women then he's a better man. Your average woman today is destroying society with their sexual choices so it's actually the opposite

Women choose for vagina tingles, not for the best genetics. Only feminist retards who have been cucked by liberal and tradcuck propaganda think otherwise. @Lucas88 claims to be a Latin soul yet he sounds more like a western feminist betacuck with his arguments more than anything. Honestly I'd say a guy like @Outcast9428 who would raise a family and prefers everyone to succeed, have a wife, etc. (as long as they work hard and are good people) is more of an "alpha" male than someone who has been brainwashed into thinking being masculine means you're a low IQ retard who has harems of bitches and bullies what he thinks are "weaker" men.

Being BOTH intelligent AND strong is obviously better than being just intelligent or just strong. We don't have to be one-dimensional archetypes. It is possible to combine multiple virtues. That is indeed what a superior man does.

I am both intelligent and strong. I've always excelled at academic and intellectual pursuits. At the same time, I began weight training when I was 13 and have been doing MMA/combat sports training since I was 15. I'm an athletic dude and know how to defend myself.

Some guys have both brains and muscle/athleticism. Maybe you're just jealous!

Keep dreaming that "alpha males" only survive on betabux welfare, bud. Many guys with stereotypically "alpha" traits are perfectly successful in modern society, often having good careers or running their own businesses. Those guys have money, intelligence, physique, charisma and a high degree of male sexual dimorphism all at the same time. In other words, they have intelligence AND all of those other virtues while the nerdy autistic type only has intelligence but nothing else. The fact that some alphas possess both intelligence plus physique and other qualities doesn't seem to sit too well with Outcast. That's because it shatters his superiority complex and exposes him as the low-quality gamma male that he is. That's why he gets so triggered. Lol!

Not all alphas are thugs or criminals. That's just a fallacy that you incels want to push.

Neglecting physical training is utter folly. The health of the body is fundamental. It is always wise to do some form of resistance training. Those who don't do any kind of resistance training will usually see their body go to shit beyond a certain age. Ironically, people who believe that all they need is intelligence while neglecting their physique are not wise at all.

Similarly, not learning some combat skills is foolish. The world around us is always unpredictable. We and our loved ones could be physically attacked when we least expect it. It is wise to learn some fighting techniques, even if it's just basic boxing with a bit of wrestling or Judo. A noble man has the ability to protect his woman. But combat skills shouldn't be used for mindless thuggery. That would be an ignoble misuse of them.

Curiously, Outcast seems to believe that I am supposed to be like him just because we suffer from the same neurological condition. That's because he has constructed a fantasy world of how reality is supposed to be in his own mind and then projects it into everyone and everything else.

In reality, I am nothing like Outcast; I have a completely different personality and psychological constitution and have a somewhat different life history. Outcast is a weakboy who got bullied throughout school and college and seemingly did nothing about it. I myself on the other hand started doing strength training, took up martial arts, made myself strong, and fought back against the bullies. After a certain point, all of the bullying stopped and people were forced to respect me (or at least leave me alone). I actually did something about the bullying. That's because I'm strong and have a fighting mentality and am neither a weakboy nor a pvssy like Outcast is.

I was always smart enough to cultivate virtues other than just intelligence. I also focused on physique, athleticism and combat skills. Outcast on the other hand isn't really that smart. He is often unable to understand simple nuances, can only think in simplistic black-and-white terms and hastily projects his own unfounded assumptions onto things. He's obviously just a one-dimensional midwit who thinks that he's much smarter than what he actually is.

Outcast seems to think that I look down on "misfits" and that my rightful place is among misfits (specifically "nerds") like him. Nah, I see through you guys' delusions and warped hackneyed perceptions of the world and want no part of your mindless groupthink or echo chambers.

I don't hate nerdy misfits. Rather I simply observe that they don't have many desirable traits and wouldn't want to be like them. Moreover, their subculture and style just don't resonate with me.

I don't see the need to bully weaker men either. Likewise, I recognize that their weakness is an undesirable trait, but at the same time I am mostly indifferent towards them and will leave them alone as long as they don't do anything to provoke me.

Outcast also delusionally believes that he has more "self-awareness" than I do and claims that he somehow knows what's best for me - namely, hanging around with nerds and social outcasts. That was the motive behind his most recent sperg-out about me going to Latin America supposedly because I don't want to be with "socially awkward people". Lol! I think that I had self-awareness aplenty. As early as the age of 15 or 16 I instinctively intuited that I needed to learn Spanish and move to a Hispanic country. And, just as I anticipated, my social life improved tremendously. I'm not compatible with Anglo culture. My own nature meshes better with Hispanic culture. I've been saying this all along. But Pastor O'Castor just doesn't want to listen.

[Tsar]

I think Tsar is some sort of a misandrist.

I'm not a misandrist, I am stating facts about nature and reality. My idea injections so some men can only produce daughters would be of great idea.

The truth is that females have:
1. A finite window of fertility and from 16-26 are when they produce the healthiest offspring.
2. Females cap the population growth.
3. Scarcity of females destroys civilization.
4. Men need a female to be integrated.
5. Females are less likely to commit violent crimes.

I am actually a moderate. Some other people want a 1 male for every 2 to 3 females ratio. I, however, only want a 84 or 85 males for every 95 or 96 females, minimum, with 2 males for every 3 females maximum. I searched it earlier today online and people on Incel forums said 1 male for every 2 to 3 females.

I will not retract my belief that the male birthrate must be lowered. I am not a misandrist..if anything, my policies will accomplish many great things for men.

Also, I seek to provide an abundance of females to a smaller population of males. Abundance always allows males to better integrate into society, greater advancement of a society, and more traditional relationships.

[Natural_Born_Cynic]

I think Tsar is some sort of a misandrist.

I'm not a misandrist, I am stating facts about nature and reality. My idea injections so some men can only produce daughters would be of great idea.

The truth is that females have:
1. A finite window of fertility and from 16-26 are when they produce the healthiest offspring.
2. Females cap the population growth.
3. Scarcity of females destroys civilization.
4. Men need a female to be integrated.
5. Females are less likely to commit violent crimes.

I am actually a moderate. Some other people want a 1 male for every 2 to 3 females ratio. I, however, only want a 84 or 85 males for every 95 or 96 females, minimum, with 2 males for every 3 females maximum. I searched it earlier today online and people on Incel forums said 1 male for every 2 to 3 females.

I will not retract my belief that the male birthrate must be lowered. I am not a misandrist..if anything, my policies will accomplish many great things for men.

Also, I seek to provide an abundance of females to a smaller population of males. Abundance always allows males to better integrate into society, greater advancement of a society, and more traditional relationships.

Still it seems that all 7 people voted "no" on your eugenics policy.

Even if you wiped out 20% to 40% of the male population there will be still problems.

1) Some men are greedy and would want more females than evenly distributed number. If everyone gets 2-3 females, some men would want 5-10 females or more. They would try to kill of other men and take his wives. Internal war may ensue. The amount of women he owns will be measured as status symbol.

2) Women are hypergamous by nature. Most of the women would flock to the richest, powerful, strongest, smartest men if polygamy is legal and most of the average joes will be left with the leftover women.

3) You can kill off all the dumb people and handicapped people like Lucas88 and you mentioned. However, not all men have the same personality, desires, needs despite being genetically enhanced with the same attributes. There will still be conflicts, egos hurt, and quest for more power.. What makes you think the men are not susceptible from all the vices of human nature unless you fully lobotomize and indoctrinate every one of them?

4) Females are just as capable of committing crimes not just violent ones but non violent ones as well. Not all females are perfect little angels.
Your men will certainly enjoy getting nagged by multiple women! Yikes! Your men might also have to mediate multiple conflicts among the wives. So much for male happiness.

5) Not all females wants to be in polygamous relationships, having to compete with his other wives to get attention, and ostracized by the other wives, and raise the other wives child. That's why you see in palace intrigues, heirs murdering each other because they are from different mother and a same father.

6) The females are more likely to rebel and kick all the men out of the nation because they have the numerical advantage. They are not going to stand by and treated as property tokens. They might even build their "feminist utopia" ruled by women, opposite of your government and it will be your worst nightmare.

7) Divorcing two to three of your wives will be a pain in the a$$. You will have to split 50-50 multiple times. You can't just simply kick them out and leave them and their kids in the woods...

8)Some men are gay, infertile, not interested in marrying despite surplus of women, etc. so that's additional 1%-5% of the male population out of the reproductive pool.

9) Corporations and government will still cater to women because they are the largest demographic, and voter base. Even if you ban females from voting or consuming, corporations will still cater to women's customer needs. If you still disempower females by brute force, your nation will lose significant amount of income and face economic stagnation because females are your largest demographic.

10) Your nation will eventually split into factions such as pro polygamous faction and pro monogamous faction. You will have to face a civil war.
The Polygamous factions are backed up by rich and powerful men with multiple wives and the monogamous faction will be backed up by majority of women disillusioned by your system and significant amount of poorer men who can't afford to support multiple wives.

[Tsar]

I think Tsar is some sort of a misandrist.

I'm not a misandrist, I am stating facts about nature and reality. My idea injections so some men can only produce daughters would be of great idea.

The truth is that females have:
1. A finite window of fertility and from 16-26 are when they produce the healthiest offspring.
2. Females cap the population growth.
3. Scarcity of females destroys civilization.
4. Men need a female to be integrated.
5. Females are less likely to commit violent crimes.

I am actually a moderate. Some other people want a 1 male for every 2 to 3 females ratio. I, however, only want a 84 or 85 males for every 95 or 96 females, minimum, with 2 males for every 3 females maximum. I searched it earlier today online and people on Incel forums said 1 male for every 2 to 3 females.

I will not retract my belief that the male birthrate must be lowered. I am not a misandrist..if anything, my policies will accomplish many great things for men.

Also, I seek to provide an abundance of females to a smaller population of males. Abundance always allows males to better integrate into society, greater advancement of a society, and more traditional relationships.

Still it seems that all 7 people voted "no" on your eugenics policy.

Even if you wiped out 20% to 40% of the male population there will be still problems.

1) Some men are greedy and would want more females than evenly distributed number. If everyone gets 2-3 females, some men would want 5-10 females or more. They would try to kill of other men and take his wives. Internal war may ensue. The amount of women he owns will be measured as status symbol.

2) Women are hypergamous by nature. Most of the women would flock to the richest, powerful, strongest, smartest men if polygamy is legal and most of the average joes will be left with the leftover women.

3) You can kill off all the dumb people and handicapped people like Lucas88 and you mentioned. However, not all men have the same personality, desires, needs despite being genetically enhanced with the same attributes. There will still be conflicts, egos hurt, and quest for more power.. What makes you think the men are not susceptible from all the vices of human nature unless you fully lobotomize and indoctrinate every one of them?

4) Females are just as capable of committing crimes not just violent ones but non violent ones as well. Not all females are perfect little angels.
Your men will certainly enjoy getting nagged by multiple women! Yikes! Your men might also have to mediate multiple conflicts among the wives. So much for male happiness.

5) Not all females wants to be in polygamous relationships, having to compete with his other wives to get attention, and ostracized by the other wives, and raise the other wives child. That's why you see in palace intrigues, heirs murdering each other because they are from different mother and a same father.

6) The females are more likely to rebel and kick all the men out of the nation because they have the numerical advantage. They are not going to stand by and treated as property tokens. They might even build their "feminist utopia" ruled by women, opposite of your government and it will be your worst nightmare.

7) Divorcing two to three of your wives will be a pain in the a$$. You will have to split 50-50 multiple times. You can't just simply kick them out and leave them and their kids in the woods...

8)Some men are gay, infertile, not interested in marrying despite surplus of women, etc. so that's additional 1%-5% of the male population out of the reproductive pool.

9) Corporations and government will still cater to women because they are the largest demographic, and voter base. Even if you ban females from voting or consuming, corporations will still cater to women's customer needs. If you still disempower females by brute force, your nation will lose significant amount of income and face economic stagnation because females are your largest demographic.

10) Your nation will eventually split into factions such as pro polygamous faction and pro monogamous faction. You will have to face a civil war.
The Polygamous factions are backed up by rich and powerful men with multiple wives and the monogamous faction will be backed up by majority of women disillusioned by your system and significant amount of poorer men who can't afford to support multiple wives.

No, no, and no.

You are making wrong assumptions:

1. Not all men will be polygynous.
2. Democracy and Republics won't exist.
3. Corporations won't exist.
4. There will be an authoritarian monarchy.
5. Females won't get anything from a male in divorce.
6. Females won't need to be in polygynous relationships if they're "Free Females"
7. There will be widespread indoctrination and propaganda, much like Nazi Germany and North Korea.

You assume that everyone would have a Western Democracy like America. No! I would have an authoritarian absolute monarchy where the monarch is an autocrat, no corporations, no Jewish or Western Capitalism, no usury, and females will support the new system. Feminism won't exist.

Also, poll was part of the clickbait. Everyone who voted "No" voted "No" on abortion. There's much more support for my injection policy to change reproduction on the Spermatozoa level.

[Tsar]

I think Tsar is some sort of a misandrist.

I think some of these posters have weird cuck or domination fetishes and take it too far.

I don't have any cuck fetish. I am also not a misandrist. I favor all existing men getting at least one female with every man who wants a virgin female able to get one.

I am actually more traditional than anyone else on this forum. Ever since 2012 when I first joined, I have been posting about why I want a virgin and the benefits to all civilization that men getting a virgin girl would achieve. Many people hated my statements because I spoke the truth, I was dismantling their brainwashing, and I was attempting to educate everyone about why females must be virgins for a man.

Instead, I was attacked, hated, and people twisted my words. I am an absolute visionary and a philosopher king. Everyone should accept my words and heed my prophecies. I am the only person in this entire world that if granted absolute power, could and would create a Golden Age, a New Renaissance, and a Eutopian Civilization. The main points of my ideology never change and they never will because all my fixed ideological points are defendable because they're absolute universal truth.