>I don't understand how this has become a central tenet of the Left
>The risk of pregnancy and STDs
Which people have addressed and come with suitable countermeasures to. Regardless, this idea that socialism inherently has people going around dicking each other on a whim and requires some social moral code to keep it in check is a joke, and one predicated on a reactionary mythology of socialism. Actually analyze the material reasons why people would desperately engage in short-term relationships rather then viewing it as a consequence of upholding some idealistic moral value or not, as there are reasons why in capitalist societies people do so.
>The child, if allowed to live by its' mother will not grow up in a stable household.
Why is the mother unable to provide for the child in socialism and how is an unstable household permitted to exist?
>Promoting contraceptives and abortion as the best way to avoid having children is really a perfect example of everything wrong with the West.
No one is "promoting" them, they are at best taking Lenin's line where one can believe abortion to be an unfortunate but necessary measure, particularly when compared to the alternative. Of course the material reasons people have to seek out an abortion should be reduced (most of them being material in nature), but banning abortion (particularity in early stage socialism) leads to more problems then it alleviates. It is not a solution to populations or preserving capitalism though, which was Lenin's issue with the rhetoric surrounding it.
>Having healthy children should be viewed as the best possible thing one can do with one's life, to bring forth new life into the world and continue on the community.
Having children is fine, but I do not fetishize or idealize their existence. They are necessary, whatever you add on to it after that is your choosing.
>The state should help families succeed all along the way
Most socialist states have
>That's the socialism that will appeal to good people.
Were not in this to be good people, or at least you should not be. We're here to do what is necessary, to achieve victory by whatever means available to us. If you want this to about being "good" people, you can join the leagues of dead socialists in the past who tried to do so in a world that would not afford it to them, and so paid the price.
>They didn't care about any of this other garbage, they wanted to feed their kids and take care of their family.
And that's fine, but rhetoric about contraceptives isn't what drove them. They also didn't flake off when it was introduced.
>divisions of labour,
>than to my own hedonistic desires.
I am against hedonism in the modern sense, which is ironically partially why I am arguing against you. What frustrates more then open hedonists who declare their hedonism are people like you you attempt to hide it behind moral platitudes. You don't stand for what is necessary, you don't pursue by conviction even at the expense of personal desire. You simply act on what feels
good, on what stimulates your moral sensibilities. It you be more pleasant if people were abstinent, and unpleasant if they weren't. Never does it occur to you to do what is unpleasant and disgusting to you in order to achieve results, or to destroy your once held idealizations of what should be to acquire the what is necessary to work with what is.
>Look at the measures in place in the Middle East.
You mean the middle east with child prostitutes and woman being both forcefully pushed into sexual relationships and ironically subsequently punished if they fail to? If these measures were intended to garner the results you spoke of, they seem to have failed in practice.