You asked us to read, so here is a closer reading than yours.
It is very telling how you cut out the actual Astrakhan quote, which makes clear that this Neo-Malthusianism, as Lenin calls it, is more like antinatalism than simply being for abortion rights:
We have to convince mothers to bear children so that they can be maimed in educational establishments, so that lots can be drawn for them, so that they can be driven to suicide!"
Lenin criticizes this attitude not because of some supposedly humanitarian opposition to abortion, but because of the inherent pessimism and antirevolutionary implications of what Astrakhan said. Lenin identifies children with hope for the future and sees the continuation of struggle as essential even in the face of worsening conditions:
Yes, we workers and the mass of small proprietors lead a life that is filled with unbearable oppression and suffering. Things are harder for our generation than they were for our fathers. But in one respect we are luckier than our fathers. We have begun to learn and are rapidly learning to fight [emphasis his]... The working class is not perishing, it is growing, becoming stronger, gaining courage, consolidating itself, educating itself and becoming steeled in battle. We are pessimists as far as serfdom, capitalism and petty, production are concerned, but we are ardent optimists in what concerns the working-class movement and its aims. We are already laying the foundation of a new edifice and our children will complete its construction. That is the reason—the only reason—why we are unconditionally the enemies of neomalthusianism
To paraphrase: birth should not be opposed on the basis that suffering in life is great, because the struggle against suffering can be won and so must be fought. So, Lenin's position is both pro-natalist and pro-abortion. This is clear in that he concludes the piece by arguing for the repeal of all laws against abortion, which he later actually put in practice after the Revolution. He did not believe abortion itself to be reactionary, immoral, or oppressive:
It goes without saying that this does not by any means prevent us from demanding the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions or against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc. Such laws are nothing but the hypocrisy of the ruling classes. These laws do not heal the ulcers of capitalism, they merely turn them into malignant ulcers that are especially painful for the oppressed masses. Freedom for medical propaganda and the protection of the elementary democratic rights of citizens, men and women, are one thing. The social theory of neomalthusianism is quite another.
I do have to disagree with Lenin on one minor point here: clearly this does not go without saying, when you have managed to so utterly misunderstand the meaning of his argument.
Every AES state has supported abortion rights, admittedly with exceptions in extreme circumstances like World War 2, in which the birth rate was of course rapidly plumetting and manpower was essential. It is not at all completely reactionary. I suspect your reason for believing this is a twisted moralism, viewing abortion as murder of undesirables like Evangelical rightists do, rather than anything to do socialist theory or practice.
Imperialists have understood they cannot manage an expanding population.
Yet capitalism also depends on a rapidly expanding population for more thorough exploitation of labor, land, and resources. It has seen by far the highest population growth of any historical epoch. The imperialists may be uncomfortable with the political implications of population growth in imperialized countries, but it is a necessary feature of the system. I don't want to go too far into this theoretical debate though, because ultimately whether this is true is irrelevant to whether abortion is acceptable and what policy on it should be implemented.
Lenin did not “legalise abortion”. The temporary allowing of abortion was due to the extreme nature of the all capitalist invasion of 1918-1924 and the famine of 1920-21
You call it temporary, but the curtailment of abortion under Stalin was a much shorter period of time than the relatively lax abortion policy otherwise. The USSR legalized abortion in 1920, curtailed it during the crisis of the 30s through world world 2, then relaxed the policy throughout the 50s after the war ended, even while Stalin was still alive. Even if the leadership did not want abortion to be overly harmful to population growth, the rate of abortion in the USSR was quite high. This journal article states it was one of the highest rates of the world during the 1950s and 1960s, with millions being performed every year. It was clearly not a strongly discouraged practice, even if in theory there were limitations to the right.
Semashko stated explicitly that...
Irrelevant to whether abortion is reactionary.
Just not the ones during their most revolutionary periods or the most revolutionary ones today.
It is unclear what you mean by this. Most revolutionary periods? How exactly is the Great Patriotic War, important as it was, more revolutionary than the immediate aftermath of 1917? If we look at China, there is strong continuity in their abortion policy ever since Mao. It was legal at the height of the revolution, and it is legal now. Are you referring to the degree or intensity of revolutionary action? I do not see a relationship between that and the banning or strong restriction of abortion. The material link between a total war and a punitively pro-natalist, anti-abortion policy, by contrast, is evident.
The Eastern Bloc states were the first in Europe to legalize abortion, after the USSR itself. Vietnam has had legal abortion on demand ever since it reunified. Cuba has had legal abortion for decades. Laos is admittedly more restrictive, but it has a much more permissive policy than you claimed. It is not only in case of danger to the mother's life; the penal code [source in Laotion] states that it is allowed in case of danger to health generally, in cases of sexual violence, in cases where the fetus would be born impaired, and in cases where the economic and social conditions of the family are too poor to raise a child.
Black nation today in USA is ferociously anti-abortion because the US literally tried to genocide them with it
Polling data shows that Black Americans are the second-most likely racial demographic in the US to support abortion rights, after Asian Americans, at 68% support.
You asked us to read, so here is a closer reading than yours.
It is very telling how you cut out the actual Astrakhan quote, which makes clear that this Neo-Malthusianism, as Lenin calls it, is more like antinatalism than simply being for abortion rights:
Lenin criticizes this attitude not because of some supposedly humanitarian opposition to abortion, but because of the inherent pessimism and antirevolutionary implications of what Astrakhan said. Lenin identifies children with hope for the future and sees the continuation of struggle as essential even in the face of worsening conditions:
To paraphrase: birth should not be opposed on the basis that suffering in life is great, because the struggle against suffering can be won and so must be fought. So, Lenin's position is both pro-natalist and pro-abortion. This is clear in that he concludes the piece by arguing for the repeal of all laws against abortion, which he later actually put in practice after the Revolution. He did not believe abortion itself to be reactionary, immoral, or oppressive:
I do have to disagree with Lenin on one minor point here: clearly this does not go without saying, when you have managed to so utterly misunderstand the meaning of his argument.
Every AES state has supported abortion rights, admittedly with exceptions in extreme circumstances like World War 2, in which the birth rate was of course rapidly plumetting and manpower was essential. It is not at all completely reactionary. I suspect your reason for believing this is a twisted moralism, viewing abortion as murder of undesirables like Evangelical rightists do, rather than anything to do socialist theory or practice.
Removed by mod
Yet capitalism also depends on a rapidly expanding population for more thorough exploitation of labor, land, and resources. It has seen by far the highest population growth of any historical epoch. The imperialists may be uncomfortable with the political implications of population growth in imperialized countries, but it is a necessary feature of the system. I don't want to go too far into this theoretical debate though, because ultimately whether this is true is irrelevant to whether abortion is acceptable and what policy on it should be implemented.
You call it temporary, but the curtailment of abortion under Stalin was a much shorter period of time than the relatively lax abortion policy otherwise. The USSR legalized abortion in 1920, curtailed it during the crisis of the 30s through world world 2, then relaxed the policy throughout the 50s after the war ended, even while Stalin was still alive. Even if the leadership did not want abortion to be overly harmful to population growth, the rate of abortion in the USSR was quite high. This journal article states it was one of the highest rates of the world during the 1950s and 1960s, with millions being performed every year. It was clearly not a strongly discouraged practice, even if in theory there were limitations to the right.
Irrelevant to whether abortion is reactionary.
It is unclear what you mean by this. Most revolutionary periods? How exactly is the Great Patriotic War, important as it was, more revolutionary than the immediate aftermath of 1917? If we look at China, there is strong continuity in their abortion policy ever since Mao. It was legal at the height of the revolution, and it is legal now. Are you referring to the degree or intensity of revolutionary action? I do not see a relationship between that and the banning or strong restriction of abortion. The material link between a total war and a punitively pro-natalist, anti-abortion policy, by contrast, is evident.
By "most revolutionary ones today," I'm assuming states you personally feel are less revisionist or something? In the case of the DPRK, you appear to be incorrect on their policy. This document submitted by them to the United Nations indicate that abortion is legal on demand.
The Eastern Bloc states were the first in Europe to legalize abortion, after the USSR itself. Vietnam has had legal abortion on demand ever since it reunified. Cuba has had legal abortion for decades. Laos is admittedly more restrictive, but it has a much more permissive policy than you claimed. It is not only in case of danger to the mother's life; the penal code [source in Laotion] states that it is allowed in case of danger to health generally, in cases of sexual violence, in cases where the fetus would be born impaired, and in cases where the economic and social conditions of the family are too poor to raise a child.
Polling data shows that Black Americans are the second-most likely racial demographic in the US to support abortion rights, after Asian Americans, at 68% support.
edit: phrasing