Russia's new anti-abortion direction is only to create 'cannon fodder' for Putin's neo-Soviet wars of aggression
Patriarch Kirill sent a letter to State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin with a proposal to ban abortions in private clinics in Russia. In some regions of Russia, this measure of restricting abortions is already in effect. If this practice spreads throughout the country, the population of Russia will increase “as if by the movement of a magic wand,” the patriarch is sure.
The topic of childbirth is of concern not only to leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church: recently, Russian parliamentarians have also increasingly turned to it. Earlier, United Russia deputy Dmitry Vyatkin called on women to give birth at 20, because, in his opinion, otherwise they would not have time to give birth more than three times. Member of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation Margarita Pavlova, in turn, called for “to stop encouraging girls to receive higher education”: in her opinion, it only prevents them from starting to have children earlier. “The search for oneself drags on for many years, and as a result, reproductive function is lost,” Pavlova complained. This did not go unnoticed on social networks.
There is a whole anti-abortion campaign here. The church, “social activists,” senators, where, as if on orders, suddenly became concerned about the birth rate. And they found the most idiotic, populist, absurd and dangerous way.
Ban abortion.
It’s good when there are no other problems left in the country. You can also take care of the livestock.
Maybe first, remove the woman Margarita Pavlova from the Federation Council? Let the borscht cook.
And let him not interfere with other people’s daughters with his Kinder, Küche, Kirche.
By the way, remember which state and which politicians preached the rejection of any other social role for women, except for the birth of little Aryans?
Outside the window - the Middle Ages. The Federation Council proposed limiting higher education for women and generally eliminating propaganda of education for women from the information field. And Patriarch Kirill asked Volodin to completely ban abortions, first in private clinics.
Stay home, pretty girl, read the Bible and give birth
Stay at home, beautiful girl, read the Bible and give birth, give birth, give birth, otherwise - discrediting the armed forces of the Russian Federation and spreading fake news.
It seems that soon there will be another traffic jam at the Verkhniy Lars checkpoint of those wishing to get away from the affectionate and kind Mother Russia. Only this time it’s not male.
But you can still admire your fellow legislators and almost every single day they can smash reality so hard against the wall that sparks come out of their eyes. Bloody, but still sparks. This, you know, is also talent.
The reason why officials in a warring country are concerned about the demographic issue seems obvious to many.
Health Minister Murashko adheres to a similar position: he is ready to ban abortions in private clinics, because “state control over the procedure will increase the birth rate in the country.”
4 Russian regions have already abandoned abortions in private clinics, and 2 more have introduced fines for “inducing artificial termination of pregnancy.”
Everything is natural: a totalitarian state (and Russia is moving by leaps and bounds in this direction) believes that the lives of citizens belong only to it, and only it will dispose of them.
Moreover, there will always be somewhere to use these lives. For example, throw into the furnace of a war started by a crazy dictator.
News of the Kremlin's demographic policy.
Millions of soldiers for future Russian wars will arise thanks to:
1. The ban on abortion;
2. Limiting women's access to higher education.
Potentially, you can forget about any other education. The path along this path is known: a scarf over the eyes, a shaft in the hands, a galloping horse - and they galloped off to give birth into a burning hut.
There is no need to be sarcastic here, everything is too clear. The fight against abortion does not seem to be a manifestation of Christian ethics.
There is only one goal there: cannon fodder.
There is only one goal: cannon fodder.
And in this sense, of course, no education is needed. Neither mothers nor children.
Everything fits together.
Education for women who set the goal of their lives to compensate for losses at the front is an unnecessary and even unnatural thing.
In this context, support for Hamas at the state level is not at all surprising.
Perhaps soon in schools, portraits of Yasser Arafat will be hung next to Putin’s portrait.
It was he who formulated what Putin and his team dream of.
"A woman's womb is our weapon."
By the way, with such a decline in the male population in the trenches of Ukraine, it’s time to start instilling in Russian women the basics of polygamy.
Although, maybe this is unnecessary. It is enough to reorient “antenatal clinics” from abortions to artificial insemination procedures - so that everything is the same as in beef cattle farming.
We must start with a ban on inducing women to have sex outside of marriage.
At the same time, masturbation can be prohibited as a waste of the seed fund.
Walk like that!
The childlessness tax is the icing on the cake.
He was born, got married, gave birth to three people, paid off his military duty, worked for 40+ years, voted for whoever he needed, died without creating a burden on the Pension Fund.
You'll win!
The fact that the anti-abortion campaign was necessary so that in the future in Russia there would be someone to put under arms is further convinced by propaganda posters on the streets.
Women who are willing to sacrifice higher education and the right to an abortion have proven difficult to find even in the “patriotic” camp. Many pro-government bloggers are sincerely outraged by this attempt to return them to the past: it turns out that the feminist slogan “my body is my business” is quite close to them, and the fact that men will decide for them whether to have children does not seem normal to them at all.
Calling a woman a child killer and putting pressure on her because, finding herself in a difficult situation, she decides to have an abortion - this is the real crime.
This is what you, gentlemen, moralists, have done to make us women feel confident that we will not be left with our children without support?
I’m not talking about the president, the government, relevant ministries and departments. These people are working on these issues.
A woman is seen solely as an incubator
I’m talking about hyped-up male representatives who regularly put pressure on women, but have never (!) outlined the responsibility of men on the topic of abortion. Although this is extremely important. But the harlot, sinner and murderer in their coordinate system is always the woman. Which, I repeat, is considered solely as an incubator, without even thinking about the fact that by calling on a woman to give birth three/four/five/nine times, one must also take care of women’s health. Which needs restoration after each birth.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I, as the granddaughter of the deputy head physician of a maternity hospital with 40 years of experience, can talk on this topic endlessly.
But will men who only care about statistics hear me?
That is the question!
You must first sort yourself out, otherwise the topic of marriage and children causes panic. Hit the baby and leave - a typical male strategy. Or even in general - “oh, God forbid, I get married and have children,” but I haven’t taken a walk yet.
A man who thinks that a woman gives birth alone because she wants to, understands nothing about women))
I read the news. “The State Duma encourages women to give birth at twenty years old.”
Well great, I think. A good, correct call. Who is this deputy who gave birth at 20, eventually became a State Duma deputy and calls on women to follow her example? Like, girls, don’t worry, in the second or third year with a child in your arms it’s not scary. Try it like me, you see, I achieved a lot after this.
But no. A man encourages us to give birth early. To be fair, this deputy actually has three children, the eldest of whom was born when the deputy was 20 years old. On the other hand, our newsmaker’s father headed the regional court of the region from which the deputy was elected for 25 years in a row. Not a bad insurance policy for a young family.
When a man can give birth to a child himself, then let him give advice to women
Listen, dear male politicians. Your appeals to women to give birth earlier and more often sound like complete trash. They will not give you the sympathy of the electorate and will not in any way affect the demographic situation in the country. With a high probability, these tips will only anger women. Because I want to hear from people with comparable experience, and not talkers. When a man can bear and give birth to a child himself, then let him give advice to women. Not earlier.
I'll give you free political advice. If you are truly concerned about demographic problems in the country, contact men. Tell them that abandoning your children to their fate if the love for a woman is gone is disgusting. That a real man is not one who once a month pays off the required alimony from the official salary and not a penny more, but one who participates on equal terms with a woman in raising a child, in spending time with him, in sitting on sick leave with a fever, in going to doctors and parent-teacher meetings, and so on. And even if a woman accidentally becomes pregnant and decides to keep the child, the man should still have full responsibility for care, upbringing and maintenance. Because you can't accidentally get pregnant alone. To do this, a man must still make certain movements without certain protection. Start talking to men, to fathers. Show by example how to properly care for children. And then, you won’t believe it, women will actually give birth more. Because a same-sex family in the form of a mother, grandmother and child will no longer be considered the norm. And a man who does not fulfill his father's responsibilities will become an outcast in society.
1. None of those politicians who now place full responsibility on women can say with certainty: “Not a single woman has had an abortion from me.” This means that they have no right to talk about it at all.
2. I don’t understand why all measures to support fertility come down to expenses for the child, and not to expenses for the mother, including her comfort, education, and stability. You and I have still seen men who pay alimony and demand an accounting that all expenses are only for the child.
Where's the mother? Where is the payment for paid education? Where are the expenses for a manicure, for any courses in cutting and sewing and personal growth, but just live and be happy?
3. Consumer society, you say? Immorality?
My dear deputies, so you and your clothes, houses, private jets, business class, official and personal cars are a consumer society. They just take you as an example.
Do you think that the political party doesn’t know about your affairs, illegitimate children, mistresses?
4. Are you ready to pay for psychologists for children whose mothers will tell them that they didn’t want them and hate them?
Or make these children, and at least chairmen of regional courts (not a bad consumer feeder)?
Everything about you, my dear champions of morality, is known.
Of course, it is necessary to discuss abortion with the child’s father, but he does not have a decisive say.
I am not campaigning for abortion. I would like all women to give birth to the healthy children they planned and expected. I would like motherhood to be a joy for everyone. But at the same time, every woman should have a choice that no one has the right to artificially block.
The burden is on the woman, it's up to her to decide
It’s not for a man to carry a child, live through all these trimesters, get wonderful things like baldness or tears (this happens to many women), endure labor pains (for many women this is exactly pain) or recover from a cesarean section. And then also feed (again, for many women this is by no means a painless process). For some, childbirth is easy, for others it is difficult and difficult. So who goes through this? Who is risking their health here? Yes, the man participated in the conception, but the further burden lies with the woman, and it is up to her to decide.
On a national scale, it’s the same: discussions about motherhood are only appropriate for women, no matter what their views are—pro-life or vice versa. Not for men. Not their bodies. Not their risks. It's none of their business.
As for the time to “think” - what if deadlines are running out? What if a decision needs to be made now and there is a conditional week left? How long should a woman think before the point of no return? And where is the guarantee that state clinics will not artificially delay and “bureaucratize” the process, forcing childbirth on women who do not want it?
The head of the Duma Committee on Family Affairs, Nina Ostanina, also spoke out against restrictions on abortion.
Bans only lead to an increase in the number of clandestine abortions and an increase in infant and maternal mortality, many commentators point out.
The state has taken an active stance on abortion. So far in the form of a possible ban on abortions in private clinics (according to statistics, this is about 1/5). Deputies are speaking, a bill is being prepared, the other day Patriarch Kirill proposed a ban on “inducing” women to have abortions and promised that then the birth rate would increase “as if by the movement of a magic wand” (and we thought that the Russian Orthodox Church does not really like magic!).
No one is uttering the word “ban” yet. But that's the trend. In state clinics, permission for abortions can be tightened as desired by some departmental acts of the Ministry of Health, which they will try to pass quietly and will actually lead to a ban, with the exception of medical indications. Already now, in order to obtain the right to an abortion in a state clinic, a woman often must undergo a special commission and a conversation during which she will be dissuaded from terminating her pregnancy.
Banning abortion increases the number of children born now, but reduces the number later
The topic of banning abortion has been discussed many times in different countries where they have tried or are trying to ban it. Three points seem important to me:
1. Experts like to repeat the phrase: “It is impossible to ban abortions, only safe abortions can be banned.” In the context of the ban on abortions, women have them clandestinely. Maternal mortality is immediately increasing (according to American estimates that have been published, by about 20-30%).
2. Banning abortion does not improve demographics. In Poland, abortion legislation is strict, where the birth rate is 1.5 children per woman. In France it is soft, there it is 1.8. In Texas, the ban on abortion resulted in a 3% increase in the number of children born (according to experts, short-term).
3. Banning abortion increases the number of children born now, but reduces their number later. A woman who terminates a pregnancy is not ready for this pregnancy now. When she is ready and willing, she will give birth to the child. But if she doesn’t have an abortion now, then “later,” when she would theoretically be ready to become a mother, she will already have a child. Unwanted and therefore possibly making her unhappy. And she will not necessarily decide to give birth to a second one.
One last thing: when abortion is banned or restricted, more children grow up in poverty, without parental love, or are abandoned by their parents. I find this much sadder than terminating a pregnancy.
I just googled the Ministry of Health statistics on abortions. So, it is this department that puts the figure at 500 thousand throughout the country. But, since our statistics are kept crookedly, they include miscarriages, frozen pregnancies and abortions for medical reasons. I dug a little more, and again the Ministry of Health gives a figure - less than 200 thousand abortions at the request of a woman. (I found, however, some other crazy figures of about two million, but the experts, whose expertise I could not understand, included in it not only medical abortions, but also emergency contraception, the purchase of which, we note, does not mean that the woman was pregnant, and says that the woman assumes that pregnancy may occur in her situation).
Tens of thousands of destinies will be crippled
And no, banning abortions will not even give an increase of these 200 thousand.
Some women will find a loophole and have an abortion.
Another part of the women will risk a clandestine abortion and either die or lose their health. Which, by the way, will give a negative birth rate, because dead women certainly cannot give birth to anyone. And health problems will take away the same woman’s chance to give birth to a child at another time and in other circumstances.
Another part of the women will go abroad and have an abortion there.
And as a result, of course, tens of thousands of lives will be crippled. But, as the experience of Poland has shown, for example, after the ban on abortion, the birth rate there dropped significantly...
In short, this is such bullshit.
However, Russian legislators care little about this, states blogger Anatoly Nesmiyan :
If there are three times more clandestine abortions in the country than legal ones, then what needs to be done? That's right, ban legal ones. And nirvana will come. Everything is according to Feng Shui.
In ancient times, there was a subject in schools - logic. It was cancelled. And now people come into life who are unable to create the simplest cause-and-effect relationships in their empty heads. Therefore, such proposals are beyond any common sense.
If there is such a huge number of illegal abortions in the country, then there are socio-economic reasons for this. Therefore, an intelligent person will begin to think - what are these reasons? how to overcome them? What do I need to do?
But they don’t take smart people as deputies; there the selection is based on a different principle. Hence the proposals - strictly within the framework of selection.
The deputies have a different logic: if they have already started to ban everything, they cannot stop, writes economist Konstantin Sonin :
“Stay at home and have children” is a tool of authoritarian control
We must understand that the main point of the current propaganda and administrative campaign “stay at home, have children” is, of course, NOT for the population to increase. (The Russian-Ukrainian war and repression led to a record drop in the birth rate.) And NOT just a consequence of the archaic and backward nature of Putin’s government.
“Stay at home and have children” is a tool of authoritarian control, a tool for maintaining power. It is easier to maintain power when the country - including the family - is organized as a rigid hierarchy. This is bad for development and moving forward, but it is very convenient for Putin and Co. to remain in power.
The Putin regime has unleashed obscurantists and is now forced to dance to their tune, says political scientist Vladimir Pastukhov :
In the shadow of the morally ambivalent and fundamentally epicurean culture of Putinism, a subculture of pseudo-religious fanaticism has developed like mold after rain in a dark corner. This culture behaves in relation to Putin’s system of power in approximately the same way as ordinary mold behaves in relation to the palace in Gelendzhik: it eats it up. First it hides behind the false panels of a ghostly empire, and then it protrudes through the walls and takes over the entire space. Such was the architectural miscalculation of the historical reenactors. It all turns out to be in the sinuses, where the devil breeds.
As a result, the authorities are forced to meet this mold halfway and make one concession after another to its perverted and florid consciousness. Surrogacy fell along with the LGBT community, preceding the seemingly inevitable ban on abortion. Does Putin need this? Of course not - why would he need mold in the palace? Can he stop it? - I'm afraid not either. It is the regime of religious fanatics, who will first devour “Don Rebbe”, and then the rest of Russia, that is beginning to be viewed as the saddest scenario for Putin’s outcome.