In our culture we look with horror upon the mutiliation of girls done by other cultures--foot binding, for example, or genital mutiliation--and we denounce these practices as barbaric and unnecessary.
The people who practiced these things, though, would argue that their way is necessary and good, for this and that and the other reason, and they would be just as sincere as this intellectualist twit is in his quest for "fairness" which is, quite frankly, impossible.
One of the largest obstacles to total dominance of the State over the people is family. Religion is the other, but of the two family is the most intractable because it's so firmly rooted in instinct. You can convince people to abandon religion, but making parents (as a class) not care about their children is damned near impossible. (Individuals, sure. Some people won't give a rat. Others will die rather than let you take their kids away. There is no way to tell in advance who is who.)
The only way, therefore, to abolish the family would be at the point of a gun. This is in perfect alignment with every other socialist utopian ideal, of course, because nothing they advocate is congruent with human natur and sooner or later it always comes down to naked government force and "maintenance of terror". (As long as the people are afraid of what the government will do to them, they can be kept in line.)
The only way to prevent family ties is to take babies away from their mothers and give them to others to raise. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this rather contravenes the entire theory behind abortion rights ("keep your laws off my body!") because women then become brood sows working for the good of the State rather than making their own choices about how and when to start a family. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this can also rather naturally lead to quotas and forced insemination and a whole host of other horrors that are (or ought to be) anathema to anyone who cares about freedom. (And if the State decides birth rates are too low? Say goodbye to "abortion rights" and legal contraceptives. Go ahead and protest, ladies; you can still be walking baby incubators in the gulag. The men won't fare as well.)
Once you've realized your grand ambition and abolished blood ties, then what? You can't let just anyone raise kids because they might not have the right politics. You need to ensure that only politically reliable people are raising the children, else you're right back with "unfairness" and some children are doing better than others. You end up with a limited pool of parents who are qualified (by your standards) to raise children to the State's specification, and so these people are laden with too many children and the quality of their learning suffers.
But that's okay; you don't really mind this because 95% of the population are proles, mindless drones who work in the factories and farms. If they're ignorant and don't know how to think they're that much easier to control. And of course the system is designed so that the "right" 5%--children of Party leaders, for example--rise to the top and get all the perks and become part of the ruling class. (Who--it must be said--are allowed to raise their own children because of course they're politically reliable!)
...unfairness, in other words, and unequality.
It doesn't take a genius to know how all this works out, because this is what happens every time socialism gets its grimy mitts into things. It always ends with government control and a select few--those in charge--getting vastly better results than nearly everyone else.
I started this with a discussion of foot binding because someday historians are going to look back at crap like this and say, What the hell drugs were these people taking that made them think stupid shit like this made sense?