Abortion and Infanticide
anthony
Someone on twitter engaged me on this subject and then immediately left me hanging, now I have thoughts I want to get out.

Abortion discourse is complete garbage due to the pro-choice/pro-life framing, with 'pro-life' being the real problem. I'm going to open this thread explaining the one I prefer.

What's the principle behind wanting abortion to be illegal and prevented as much as possible? This is the 'Pro-life' position. But what is Pro Life? What is 'life' and why is it sacred? The way people treat the abortion issue we have to figure that 'life' means any form of living human material. Not sacred due to nature or potential or history, sacred because it is *life*.

Built into the position of pro-life we have the idea that death is the worst fate possible and to be avoided at all costs. Culture, prosperity, sanity, expediency, everything sacrificed at the altar of 'life'. You can say that if pressed on the subject many pro-lifers might not agree with this, but in practice it's what they're doing. They don't weigh the value of a life before declaring it to be sacred.

Built into this position is all that we need to make the planet into a giant behavioural sink. Wars of aggression are bad because they kill people. Mass movement of human trash towards care-oriented states is good because they will get healthcare which will enable them to have more life. Maintaining dysfunctional hospitals in the third world at enormous cost and feeding the hungry with outside food is good because it preserves life. The deaths of cultures on both ends due to this is a sacrifice we're willing to make in the service of life.

This kind of thinking isn't without precedent in Christianity. I actually came to believe this through Ivan Illich, a renegade Catholic clergyman who on a formal level broke with the church over this and related issues. Another who *got it* was Mother Theresa. She lived by similar principles, and this is what most criticism of her is based on. That she could have used her fame and prestige to bring in billions of dollars and build efficient networks of hospitals across third world slums. But she didn't do this, instead she lived to enrich lives with the values she considered sacred. The idea that humanity has a duty to propagate and maintain as much bare human existence as possible is in my opinion not a Christian one at all. Illich even went as far as to call it the highest blasphemy, bare 'life' becoming something Christians can fall into worshipping and placing above God's position in life. I'm not a practicing Christian, but I felt the need to put this in to pre-empt the lazy moralfaggotry that this subject tends to invite.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other thing I wanted to raise was the *value* of pro-life as a political movement. I've been told that it's an "effective" movement due to its political heft. But this raises the question of effective towards what end? Unless you consider more 'life' an inherent win nothing is really accomplished here. The way I see it it's a speedbump in the way of the real problem which is society's near total indulgence of women. I don't see abortion as an inherent evil. It could quite easily be a tool for good in responsible hands. Earthly good anyway. I have no solid information on the state of the souls of the aborted.

Is anybody here "pro-life" or leaning that way? If so I'd be curious as to hear where you come from on this issue.
macintoshuser
(05-04-2022, 07:03 AM)anthony Wrote: Built into the position of pro-life we have the idea that death is the worst fate possible and to be avoided at all costs. Culture, prosperity, sanity, expediency, everything sacrificed at the altar of 'life'. You can say that if pressed on the subject many pro-lifers might not agree with this, but in practice it's what they're doing. They don't weigh the value of a life before declaring it to be sacred.

Built into this position is all that we need to make the planet into a giant behavioural sink. Wars of aggression are bad because they kill people. Mass movement of human trash towards care-oriented states is good because they will get healthcare which will enable them to have more life. Maintaining dysfunctional hospitals in the third world at enormous cost and feeding the hungry with outside food is good because it preserves life. The deaths of cultures on both ends due to this is a sacrifice we're willing to make in the service of life.

This kind of thinking isn't without precedent in Christianity. I actually came to believe this through Ivan Illich, a renegade Catholic clergyman who on a formal level broke with the church over this and related issues. Another who *got it* was Mother Theresa. She lived by similar principles, and this is what most criticism of her is based on. That she could have used her fame and prestige to bring in billions of dollars and build efficient networks of hospitals across third world slums. But she didn't do this, instead she lived to enrich lives with the values she considered sacred. The idea that humanity has a duty to propagate and maintain as much bare human existence as possible is in my opinion not a Christian one at all. Illich even went as far as to call it the highest blasphemy, bare 'life' becoming something Christians can fall into worshipping and placing above God's position in life. I'm not a practicing Christian, but I felt the need to put this in to pre-empt the lazy moralfaggotry that this subject tends to invite.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other thing I wanted to raise was the *value* of pro-life as a political movement. I've been told that it's an "effective" movement due to its political heft. But this raises the question of effective towards what end? Unless you consider more 'life' an inherent win nothing is really accomplished here. The way I see it it's a speedbump in the way of the real problem which is society's near total indulgence of women. I don't see abortion as an inherent evil. It could quite easily be a tool for good in responsible hands. Earthly good anyway. I have no solid information on the state of the souls of the aborted.

Is anybody here "pro-life" or leaning that way? If so I'd be curious as to hear where you come from on this issue.

Our culture fears death more than anything else - covid is an excellent example of this as well. I've never been a pro-life supporter because of the exact reasons you point out - it puts value on life for the sake of it being life. There's nothing noble about living for the sake of living. Everyone seems to have it drilled into their heads that they have to cling onto their lives with a tight grip - which explains a lot of the drastic, even unhinged, behaviors we see displayed by normies on a daily basis. 

Although I don't like Christianity at all, I'm not sure if that is what is solely to blame for this kind of thinking. I always thought that Christians kind of embraced death in a way considering that their religion is centered around death and the afterlife. So you're right in thinking that it's not a Christian value, but it has been retrofitted to be one. It would be good to try and trace the origins of how people came to value meaningless life so much.
obscurefish
The OP is misguided because the 'pro-life' movement really is just anti-abortion and doesn't value 'bare life'. It's very common for the pro-abortion crowd to point this out as an example of 'hypocrisy' (e.g. the death penalty). While the anti-abortion cause has adopted the rhetoric of protecting 'bare life' its opponents intuitively know that this isn't the real motivation, and someone who really held 'bare life' as the highest value would have already gone over to the left long before now.
anthony
(05-04-2022, 11:56 PM)obscurefish Wrote: The OP is misguided because the 'pro-life' movement really is just anti-abortion and doesn't value 'bare life'. It's very common for the pro-abortion crowd to point this out as an example of 'hypocrisy' (e.g. the death penalty). While the anti-abortion cause has adopted the rhetoric of protecting 'bare life' its opponents intuitively know that this isn't the real motivation, and someone who really held 'bare life' as the highest value would have already gone over to the left long before now.

Idolisation of bare life is the only coherent principled reason to be against all abortion.
Leverkühn
(05-04-2022, 07:03 AM)anthony Wrote: What's the principle behind wanting abortion to be illegal and prevented as much as possible? This is the 'Pro-life' position. But what is Pro Life? What is 'life' and why is it sacred? The way people treat the abortion issue we have to figure that 'life' means any form of living human material. Not sacred due to nature or potential or history, sacred because it is *life*.

Built into the position of pro-life we have the idea that death is the worst fate possible and to be avoided at all costs. Culture, prosperity, sanity, expediency, everything sacrificed at the altar of 'life'. You can say that if pressed on the subject many pro-lifers might not agree with this, but in practice it's what they're doing. They don't weigh the value of a life before declaring it to be sacred.

Built into this position is all that we need to make the planet into a giant behavioural sink. Wars of aggression are bad because they kill people. Mass movement of human trash towards care-oriented states is good because they will get healthcare which will enable them to have more life. Maintaining dysfunctional hospitals in the third world at enormous cost and feeding the hungry with outside food is good because it preserves life. The deaths of cultures on both ends due to this is a sacrifice we're willing to make in the service of life.

I'd say I consider myself somewhat pro-life, but my views on the issue are also mitigated by my views on eugenics. While I agree you that the ProLife/ProChoice debate is often trash because of framing, I don't think this really captures the Pro-Life view as a whole. There's maybe a section that doesn't really think this, and as @obscurefish pointed out, they are mostly on the Left. Perfect example on twitter would be LeftCaths like Elizabeth Bruenig, AreYouSureBruv, ThottonMather, etc. I think all these people are pretty outspokenly pro-life in the way you describe. More historically you could also look at Dorothy Day and The Catholic Worker Movement too, classic Cath Socialist these types love. These people do view all life as sacred, and they're usually anti-war, anti-death penalty, and all the rest. 

But again, these are all Pro-life leftists, and they only make up a small portion of the pro-life movement as a whole. As you know, the GOP is the party of pro-life politics in America, and many of them are incredibly pro-war (especially before Trump), and are mixed on immigration. It's not so much that all life is sacred and thus we must prostrate ourselves before the third world masses, but that abortion is a specific type of horrific act to them. The reasoning being it's pretty much killing an innocent life that the mother (through her own actions) conceived and wants to kill out of convenience. Most of them support the death penalty and view it as a just punishment for criminals (The Bible agrees on this for what it's worth), so killing isn't always bad. Republicans have no issue saying that a mother who makes the bad choice of having pre-marital sex and gets knocked up has to give birth to her child, but then saying she's mostly on her own to raise it. They do view killing innocent life as bad in some sense, but their position is also strongly motivated by their views on personal responsibility. You had sex, you got pregnant, so now you have to get your shit together and raise that kid as best you can. But you can't terminate that pregnancy anymore than starving blacks can go loot a store for bread. Again as fish said, it's more about being anti-abortion than being pro-life, the latter is just a more effective label: Pro-Life sounds good, it appeals to the emotions, especially when you can then call your opponents "anti-life."

With regards to its effects as a political movement, I think the "pro-life movement" has allowed the Republican party to rally people with different views to vote for them. As far as single-issue voters go, Pro-Lifers are rather large. In turn, Pro-Choice voters are also another rather large voting bloc. I actually never thought Republicans would want to go through with outlawing abortion because then they would lose it as an issue to run on in elections, but I may well be wrong on that. We will see.
Saker
I consider abortion to be murder, and murder, within a certain strict definition is proscribed, but I would not identify as pro life. Any woman who would choose to kill her own child deserves to hang. Outside of strict principle, I consider it a social ill that as you said indulges women, and promotes short term thinking and sexhaving. Sterilizing certain defectives would be a much neater solution.

In my view, the idolization of bare life is female thinking writ large, avoidance of direct conflict, avoidance of having to carry out judgement, perpetual compromise, avoiding the icky feeling in one's stomach that comes from making irrevocable decisions. If all life is sacred, one never actually has to do anything. I hope I've conveyed my thought process here well enough.
Leverkühn
(05-05-2022, 12:23 AM)anthony Wrote: Idolisation of bare life is the only coherent principled reason to be against all abortion.
You posted this as I was typing up my response so I'll just add on. I simply don't think the majority of the Pro-Life movement idolizes bare life, it doesn't cohere with the rest of their beliefs, which often allow for justified deaths. The Pro-Lifers largely supported the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, because they saw it as a Just War. We were attacked, which gives us a carte blanche justification to wage war on our enemies and all who aid them. It's very Old Testament in a sense, like God telling the Israelites to wipe out the tribes of Canaan, every man, woman, and child. Those who are at fault deserve a just punishment, and sometimes that punishment is death. If they viewed bare life itself as sacred, most pro-lifers would support massive welfare programs and free healthcare. But they don't; these people are often the ones least likely to support such programs. Again it comes down to personal responsibility: if you can't look after yourself, or if you fuck up and become destitute, that's on you, and if you die, you die. I don't think they will say this explicitly, especially not pro-life politicians (it's bad for winning over moderates, as you might imagine), but this is what the policy views of many of them amount to. They don't think it's just to kill the baby because the baby has done nothing wrong. It wasn't brought into this world of its own accord, and it's not old enough to be responsible for itself, so it requires protection from flagrant mothers trying to buck the consequences of their actions (being dirty fucking whores).
anthony
I think the last few replies are working towards the real issue underneath what I consider the *unprincipled* anti abortion stance, which is that it's a way to indirectly try to control women and punish irresponsible behaviour. Women need controlling and we shouldn't protect people from the consequences of irresponsible and antisocial behaviour. But is trying to ban all abortion an effective way of getting this? Does all abortion being banned have any inherent value or is it symbolic win and step towards achieving things of real value?

Everything that Curtis Yarvin wrote about the Critical Race Theory laws seems more relevant on this issue.

[Image: crt.png]

What is your net power gain in banning abortion? Explain how overturning Roe v Wade is a win? Even in the states where it won't just flip back to abortion being legal via another path and there really is no legal abortion explain to me how that's a win.
Saker
One concrete hope, I suppose, is that those states which successfully ban it will be avoided by potential californian etc. migrants. How likely this is I am unsure.

Regarding women, any complete system enforcing pro social behaviour upon them would include a ban on or heavy restriction of abortion, though a ban on abortion is not that system in and of itself. This is part of the problem here I guess. A truly ideal societal solution is impossible under current conditions, so any move in the right direction is going to be incomplete, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be made. To look at it from another view, would it being upheld create a power gain? I wouldn't think so.
Enzo
Worth noting in this framing is exactly who is going to be aborting and for what reasons. Roe v. Wade guarantees women federal protection for abortions, meaning that it essentially guarantees them the ability to make the decision. It never was and never could cede or grant eugenic authority to any person or group that has any sort of “long view” of things. If a eugenic abortion institution is to be achieved, then the real decision making will have to lay with such a group rather than with young women (lmfao). Even something as simple as “if you get an abortion with x y and z conditions, you will also be sterilized” would be an improvement because it forces some outside calculus on the subject and avoids the current consequence-free arrangement.

Consider also that shitlibs are universally concerned with mere life as the justification for abortion. How many times have you heard about an unplanned kid ruining some bitch’s college degree or some negro broormare’s upcoming harvard medical mathematics phd program or whatever. These days, being childless is seen as the default and having even one is viewed as a risky, difficult, and *intentional* alternative. Abortion is seen by the normgroid as a means of maintaining a pathetically small, comfortable, uncourageous life.

There is one exception i suppose, or perhaps class of exceptions. That being the near-universal abortions of retarded and otherwise mentally fucked up babies, but imo we don’t need abortion to select those out of the population, even so there’s not a huge amount of harm to it. Maybe it’s too “ends vs means” but the only reason this decision is made “on the ground” is because boss moms don’t see having a retarded kid as very glamorous.
Leverkühn
(05-05-2022, 01:05 AM)anthony Wrote: Women need controlling and we shouldn't protect people from the consequences of irresponsible and antisocial behaviour. But is trying to ban all abortion an effective way of getting this? Does all abortion being banned have any inherent value or is it symbolic win and step towards achieving things of real value?
For some people it really does have an inherent value in that they see killing an innocent life as morally wrong. I think if you asked the average normie BoomerCon they'd give you some religious reasoning and tell you that said reasons trump any practical argument regarding eugenics and population control.   

On the topic of practicality and what it gives us, Enzo made a good point. The issue with Roe V Wade specifically, along with most other abortion laws in the West , is it's entirely up to the woman if she wants to get an abortion or not. The common slogan you hear from liberals is that abortion "should only be decided between a woman and her doctor." This is in part because Roe v Wade grants women the right to abortion under an incredibly odd interpretation of the 14th amendment. I actually think Alito's (early draft) opinion is incredibly well written, and worth taking a glance at if law stuff interest you. He lays out how this reading is flawed and has been perverted by the previous decision. There's also a number of decisions that followed a similar reading of the 14th, and some leftist woman was having a meltdown on twitter about how Alito's ruling could call all these other decisions into question. I'm not saying everything she says is likely to happen anytime soon, but I think any partial rollback of these Civil Rights Cases from the 60s and 70s is of benefit to us. Denying Roe historical legitimacy allows us to more readily call into question laws that restrict rights to association that have been trampled on, or a State's right to ban gay marriage. A drop in the pond has rippling effects.
anthony
I think the only reasonable thing to take from Roe v Wade is that American elites are no longer conscientious enough to be trusted to adhere to coherent principles. Nobody will be convinced of the justice of one thing or another so just stack institutions with members of your cult if you want to get anywhere. It's what they did. I'm not reading anything about Roe v Wade because it wasn't an intellectual fight, it was a political one. The writing was just a half-assed formality.

Anti abortion is pretty much a cult issue, but one that more or less exists in isolation, or at least with nothing I consider good. I'm not taking its progress as a sign anything is going anywhere good. People who choose to stand with or who actually believe this aren't bringing along anything good with them, they just want abortions made illegal. They don't have sane ideas on management of society or the future of humanity. In my opinion they're about as low as communists and socialists. I can believe that it's possible to stack the legal system with anti abortion minded people. I also believe that this would do nothing good for the world. These people still on the whole hold retarded political beliefs and restriction of abortion solves nothing on its own. These zombies are incapable of building a working political order. One of their retarded cult beliefs upsets women. That's the win we've got here.
Svevlad
Well, just another thing to embrace.

I do remember a proposal to reform the whole American political system so only single-issue parties are allowed, and nothing more, which would allow the government to be tweaked (and be paralyzed and automatically become a non-entity, obviously, allowing for actual efficient self-governance on the local level). And it seems things are heading this way, and with the US still being the preeminent cultural hegemon, soon this craziness will spread elsewhere (but also allow foreign craziness to infuse into US society easier - there is a non-zero chance this happened due to the whole Poland abortion ban)

They're incapable of building a working political order, but I really don't think anyone is, currently, because everyone is simply too torn apart and entrenched into "cults." All systems are good until you add in people, and it just turns out all the people are now deranged, insane, irredeemable and would ruin everything.
anthony
(05-05-2022, 04:07 AM)Svevlad Wrote: Well, just another thing to embrace.

No. In my opinion it's retarded and disgusting. Not a partial good or unprincipled good. It's bad.
Leverkühn
(05-05-2022, 03:24 AM)anthony Wrote: People who choose to stand with or who actually believe this aren't bringing along anything good with them, they just want abortions made illegal. They don't have sane ideas on management of society or the future of humanity. In my opinion they're about as low as communists and socialists.
I fail to see how this is any different than the vast majority of the Pro-Choice crowd, many of whom are literal communists, socialists, anarchists, and so on. These people also don't have sane ideas on management of society. In fact, most of them would probably scold you for even wanting to manage society in this way, and view you as a eugenic nazi for saying such a thing. I don't really disagree with your criticisms of the pro-life crowd, but I fail to see how supporting the other side is at all helpful or conducive to a eugenic worldview. Allowing women the choice to abort or not will always be dysgenic. If it were the case that abortion had to be decided by the patriarch of the family, or some future BasedWorld government institution, I'd be willing to support the abortion-side. If I could hit a button that would simultaneously legalize abortion and allow you, Anthony, to be Eugenics Czar, I'd hit it and say let it rip. But the number of eugenics-conscious pro-abortion people is so incredibly insignificant here, I don't find it reasonable to support abortion on this basis. If we ever had the power to enact the eugenics views of our dreams, we'd almost certainly have the power to ride roughshod over pro-life laws as well. 

As it stands I simply don't think the current system of giving women the power over the life and death of their child is worthwhile. They neither deserve that power, nor could they ever use it to its positive potentials. I have no issue supporting abortion and infanticide in an imagined future, but not under the current framework.
cats
Consider:
[Image: dqwl35.jpg]

This isn't to say that abortion is a eugenics program; it is most certainly not. That being said, it mostly just takes 'groids off the street, and if we account for Hispanics in that White proportion, Whites abort at disproportionately lower rates compared to their demographic share of the United States. I have a hard time seeing this as anything beyond just another surrogate issue for the right to not deal with the fact that demographic doom is the most pressing issue civilization faces today.
Leverkühn
(05-05-2022, 02:50 PM)cats Wrote: That being said, it mostly just takes 'groids off the street, and if we account for Hispanics in that White proportion, Whites abort at disproportionately lower rates compared to their demographic share of the United States.
This is probably the strongest argument for Abortion given the current parameters we have to work with, which is funny because it's something the Pro-Choice crowd really, really hates to discuss. This article gives a run down on those abortion numbers in specific states. Of course, my opinion would always be that if possible it would be better off sterilizing these types but that's sadly not politically viable at the moment. I wish I could find a chart like this that further broke down statistics of the whites who do end up deciding to get an abortion; it seems to me that among Whites, a lot of the people who get abortions are actually middle class and well-educated, maybe even coming from good families. I imagine a lot of these ladies would actually be giving birth to kids with good genes if forced through with their pregnancies, maybe she'd even be forced to start a family with the Chad Thundercock who knocked her up after a college party. Ultimately this probably doesn't outweigh the positive elements of aborting all those minority kids, and again if possible I'd be happy to allow abortion for blacks, the mentally retarded, and the poor, but not for upper-status Whites.
Hardcore Happiness
[Image: jsHViZy.png]
Abortion is LITERALLY heckin' DEMONIC

Have faith, incel

Touch rosary 

You are NOT having a blessed one

Oof, this ain't it my brother in Christ
NuclearAbsolutist
(05-07-2022, 01:27 AM)Hardcore Happiness Wrote: -snip-

The majority view of this thread is abortion is bad because its current form is not conducive enough for the purpose of racial eugenics and not any form of supernatural moral claim that human life starts in the womb and ergo termination of a fetus there is murder and a offense against God. The group that does believe that and is naturally the main engine behind pro life today is also by chance the racial group most benefited by non white abortion demographically. Putting that aside I personally am pro life and find the bare life complaints superfluous as there would be no positive population growth(Ie a excess of new mouths) nationally(I can only say nationally and not per racial group as I have found the data on that to be very limited to compare vs tfr) in the US where this debate is centered even if abortion were banned tomorrow. The main engine behind the demographic crisis has been ever since the start of the mysterious collapse in birth rates is migration and not births. The real issue  is the  nursing home population demographics of our countries being swamped by outsiders but the cause behind this population crash(and the rise of the population of the global south) and how to fix it is of course beyond this thread.
[Image: 3RVIe13.gif]

“Power changes its appearance but not its reality.”― Bertrand De Jouvenel
Leverkühn
(05-07-2022, 01:47 PM)NuclearAbsolutist Wrote: The main engine behind the demographic crisis has been ever since the start of the mysterious collapse in birth rates is migration and not births.
This gets at what I see as the double-edged sword involved in the abortion debate. As stated by @cats, a primary effect of outlawing abortion will be more hispanic and 'groid births occurring, as these groups have abortions at much higher rates than Whites given their population %. We can all agree this is bad. But on the other hand, with birth rates as they are, the US government makes up for the lack of population growth within the country by flooding us with immigrants: whether that be blue-collar works from Central and South America, Indians coders on HB1 visas, Africans, etc. It seems that until the White birth rate increases, either option will lead to an increase of browns in the United States. A true solution would have to be more nuanced than simply allowing anyone to get an abortion or not allowing anyone to get one. I think everyone here does hold a more nuanced take on the issue, but its totally absent among politicians and normie voters.
Reply 



[-]
Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)