Should 20-40% of Male Babies Be Aborted?

[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.

[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.