The perception of a woman as an incubator completely destroys the institution of marriage

In addition, the girls, not realizing what was done to them, went to the doctor only when their female diseases had already progressed far. Officially, the “family planning” campaign ended in 1975, but actually continued until 1991, and individual cases of control over the reproductive function of Inuit women without their consent are known until 2018. The Inuit themselves (in Russia they are called Eskimos) believe that the indigenous population of Greenland would now be twice as large if it were not for the impediment to childbearing.

Another case, from a very recent time. In those years when Britain, along with the “civilized world,” was in Covid quarantine, the country had an acute shortage of opportunities to get to a non-Covid doctor and undergo examinations, including for diseases such as cancer. Not to mention planned operations to replace joints, remove stones from internal organs and other “non-serious” diseases. Getting to the dentist was a huge success! But there was one non-Covid medical indication for which getting immediate help was not a problem at all. These are home abortions. Kits of drugs for home abortion were sent by mail at the first request of a woman, without even trying to talk to her about why she wanted to get rid of the child, whether she would agree to change her decision… Sometimes restless women, left without psychological support, started taking the drugs , but they interrupted him, and this threatened them with serious complications. This was all very, very recent.

Why am I telling this? Moreover, when the Human Rights Council states that doctors will never push women to have an abortion without medical indications and therefore there is no need for a ban on inducing pregnant women to have an abortion, I understand that this is not so. Doctors can do this kind of thing, and I know that this sometimes happens in Russia.

Therefore, I think that a ban on inducing pregnant women to have an abortion without medical indications is exactly what is needed, and not in individual regions, but federally.

But the other extreme – attempts to encourage women to have children by oppressing women – is exactly what can negate all good efforts in the fight for fertility. Characteristic here is the speech of the senator from the Chelyabinsk region, Margarita Pavlova, who stated that “we need to stop encouraging girls to get higher education,” so that education does not prevent them from having children.

It is not worth saying that there is no negative connection between a woman’s career and childbearing – of course, it happens that one contradicts the other. And in this sense, probably, if we complicate women’s opportunities for professional growth, we will make them more susceptible to staying at home.

On the other hand, Pravmir editor Anna Danilova is absolutely right when she says that a woman is sometimes left without a husband – but even then she must be able to feed and raise children, and for this a woman must not only have a profession, but also experience and opportunities for career growth.

From a rational point of view, both Pavlova and Danilova are “right about something.” But in an ethical sense, Pavlova’s reasoning is irresponsible. It is impossible to imagine a happy future for a country that is trying to build it on the oppression of women. And trying to cut off life opportunities for women because they are women is oppression. Why do we need the idea of ​​a woman as a creature who can be forced to bear children if something is forbidden to her?

The next step in this direction is forcing women to have an abortion “only with the permission of their husband,” and after another step, to give birth to children from rapists. As crazy as it sounds, even this last opinion is quite widespread among some of the conservative public, who advocate allowing abortions “only for medical reasons.” These people, in principle, are not able to understand that the perception of a woman as an incubator is not something that can save the country from demographic failure, but something that will completely destroy the institution of marriage (why get married if it makes you so dependent on your husband?) to an increase in violence (if a woman is an object, then it is easier to perceive her as an object of violence) and will have a disgusting effect on women’s health, both physical and mental.

Do we really want children in our country to be raised by oppressed mothers? And, by the way, what about the speeches heard in the government that Russia actually needs both qualified brains and working hands?

Sometimes one gets the impression that this request for work is the only guarantee that the state will not decide to oppress women. Everything else is much less convincing. In particular, the idea that the state should pay for children has already taken root. Of course, parents usually like this; they begin to think that paying for children is normal. Suggestions are made about what additional payment and for which child’s account should be assigned. But when the state gets involved in private life, it always gets something for it. As a rule – control. And it’s only natural that when people argue: we’ll give birth to one for ourselves, and then pay us to give birth, create conditions for us, it looks like they’re not giving birth to the next children for themselves. Unhealthy picture.

And therefore I will say again: Anna Danilova is right when she says that both a man and a woman in a family should be able to feed children. The conditions that need to be created are, in my opinion, conditions for successful and well-paid work. Enough to study, work – and have children. After all, all of us who are now in our thirties and forties were born to working and sometimes student parents. If now household provision has improved significantly and the state can create more prosperous conditions than our parents had, this should be taken for granted, but not as a reason to give birth or not give birth.

As for abortions, they always indicate trouble. A woman who decides to have an abortion is always a woman to whom something bad has happened or is happening (even if she herself does not realize it). She can and should be helped, she can and should be talked to – but not only with her, and for some reason there are no calls from the Church and the state to talk to men. Yes, men should not have the right to prohibit – but objectively they can help convince women. If we want a result, this is a sufficient reason.