The passion for abortion

... and the rebirth of eugenics

Nov 26, 2024

I thought I said everything I care to say about abortion in my two posts:
Abortion and A Libertarian position, but then I came across these two debates compelling me to revisit the question:
1 Republican vs. 25 Kamala Harris Voters (Feat. Ben Shapiro)
Can 25 Liberal College Students Outsmart 1 Conservative? (feat. Charlie Kirk)

I really don’t like the format, but I found both debates highly educational. Petrifying, but educational. I was shocked by the virtue signaling vehemence fueling the drive to normalize murder. Yes, I chose every single word very carefully. The attitudes displayed are foreshadowing a very dark future.

It would be easy to quip about this generation, about how badly brainwashed, selfish, short-sighted, irresponsible, low information yet arrogant smartasses they are, but the point is not what’s in their heads but what’s missing from it: consideration for the consequences.
A simple consideration of the question itself:

Is abortion a good thing?
It is an invasive medical procedure that comes with very real risks and harms.
Wouldn’t prevention be better? It’s not that there are no options. Let me count the ways:

Abstinence
We can quote Nancy Reagan: “Just say NO!” Virgin birth is an exceedingly rare event.
Timing
…is a time-honored natural birth control. Ovulation is just a few days a month.
Withdrawal
Any decent man will honor that request.
Sex without vaginal penetration
I leave the details to your imagination…
Physical protection like condoms or IUDs
We are teaching pubescent girls how to put condoms on a cucumber. How is it possible that grown women still don’t know how to do it? (Could the problem be the disappointment over the cucumber induced expectations?)
The pill
…was the foundation of the sexual revolution.
The morning after pill
… is a little more complicated, but it is available in most places.
Tubal ligation
I used to have a girlfriend who got that done after she had her third child.
For me, it was an impediment to a long-term relationship, but for her, it was a perfectly reasonable decision.

The common element in all of these is forethought, an idea that this ‘ME’ & ‘NOW’ generation seems to have a problem with. A support for abortion rights is simply a support for irresponsible behavior.
There is a plenty of options to satisfy burning sexual desires without getting pregnant.
But to put it very bluntly: if you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t f**k around!
Why is it that we are only talking about preventing child birth and not about preventing pregnancy?
Some women are making a sport of having as many abortions as they can. (The claim may not be true, but her attitude most definitely is.) She is willing to kill with glee.

Boundaries and framing

In both debates, with slight variations, the consensus view seems to be that killing an unborn child is

A social good
A fundamental human right
A ‘health issue’ (as in ‘reproductive health’) and
… it is not a life anyway

Every one of these points is wrong. I would be much more accommodating toward the pro-choice side if we could agree on my most basic point that we should not look at it as a positive good.
Abortion should be tolerated, but NOT championed. It should be not an absolute, but a limited right.
What this would mean in practice, for example, is time limit set to viability, not beyond. Or, whatever the line is, limited to states, which is the essence of the overturning of Roe vs Wade.
Where to draw the line should be our only question, not whether there should be a line at all.

If you want to know which side is right in a debate, look for the one that does not have to lie to make its point. You cannot lie your way into being right. Reproductive rights and reproductive health are the most disgusting examples of Orwellian newspeak, meaning the exact opposite of their original meaning.
China’s one child policy meant that women did not have the right to reproduce. The violent termination of the reproductive process is the very opposite of reproduction. Murder is not exactly healthy for the victim.

I believe that everybody using the expression knows that, they just managed to get comfortable living with the cognitive dissonance of doublespeak.

I started out with an unconditional support for the “My Body, My Choice” position; but as I am watching these debates, I find myself radicalized. I started my second post with a joke on ‘when does life begin’, but I never stated my position, which is this:

The moment the egg and the sperm do their genetic swap and start dividing, something brand new has been added to the universe. A unique combination of genes that never existed before. It has all the knowledge to replay our evolutionary history in the womb. It knows how to fold proteins, how to build a heart, a brain and whatever else is needed to survive outside that cozy little thing called to womb. All that knowledge and the ability to act on it is the very definition of life. Yes, it is vulnerable and needs all the protection we can give to it. Yes, it may end on its own. Yes, it takes a while before it even starts to look like a human, and yes, it is an inconvenience for the mother, just like her pre-birth life was on her mother. That is also part of life.

Most of these debaters in the two videos were of the stomp and trump variety: come up with a novel, smart-assish argument to stomp your opponent with; hoping that it will be the trump card to win the debate with.

My story

I am a boomer, coming of age in the most glorious days of the sexual revolution. I had my fair share of casual sex. My position on abortion did not grow out religious faith of prudery. If you wish to understand the very personal foundation of that position, read my previous posts on it. Seriously, here they are: Abortion and A Libertarian position.
I am NOT an ideological anti-abortionist, but I see it as a necessary evil at best.

I sired eight lives, only two made it to birth. The first ended in a miscarriage; the second was my first son; the third an abortion; the fourth was my second son; in 5, 6 & 7 the embryo died in the womb and had to be ‘aborted’, which probably caused so much damage that the last pregnancy ended in a miscarriage.

A child is part of you. In the womb, it literally is. Losing one is losing a part of you and it is tragic. Nellie-willy abortions make you empty. Losing four pregnancies is a heavy burden to carry.
In every single case I was wondering how is it possible, that nobody seemed to be interested in what happened, what was the cause of the unexpected deaths. For the doctors performing the cleanup of the dead embryo was just a routine job where you do not ask question. They are killing so many healthy babies that they do not really care to find out what killed the ones that just died inside.

Consider this: for every four live births in the US there is one abortion. Abortions passed the million per year mark in 2023.
The bottom line of the above is that it is NOT A GOOD THING!
It should not be celebrated as part of some sort of liberation, it should not be championed.
It should be tolerated, but not incentivized, and above all, the need for it should be prevented.

Everything I said so far in this post is just an introduction to the two points that I am trying to make.
Abortion is not the problem, what it foreshadows, is.

Feminism, the birth gap and the empty planet

I won’t bet on it, but I think the odds are on my side thinking that most of the participants of these two debates justify their position with the idea that there are too many people on this planet already. Abortion is a social good because (among other things) it helps with that problem.

Except, of course, our actual problem is the opposite.
What we are facing is an impending population collapse. You can check out the links in the bottom.
The two sources I would recommend most are:

Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline
and the documentary: Birthgap - Childless World

Here is a quote from “Birthgap”

“… if you're childless at 30 at most you've got a 50% chance of ever becoming a mother and that's maximum it's actually lower than that in most countries. I could not find anywhere any example so it's a toss of a coin turning 30 without a child”

If you have a few more abortions on the top of it, every abortion diminishes the probability of successful subsequent pregnancies. The result is very large cohort of women who are childless, partnerless, lonely and VERY unhappy; realizing at the age of 40 that they missed the boat on family.
The most important finding of the “Birthgap” is the fact that the percentage of people having 1,2,3 or more children did not change. The only thing that brings down the birthrate statistics is the number of women who have no children at all.

Aborting the inconvenient pregnancy today means aborting a most important aspect of your tomorrow. It means aborting the generation that is supposed to take care of you in your old age. And that is not a small task.

The normalization of state assisted murder

In the past year, in several posts and in different contexts, I made the point that the welfare state is unsustainable. Its existence is predicated on continuous growth without the ability for course-correction.
Consider this fact in the following context:

In his post of November 18^th, Dr. Shawn Whatley describes the problems with Canada’s assisted suicide regime titled We’re way beyond the slippery slope. Do yourself a favour and read the post.
Medically assisted suicide is the sixth leading cause of death in Canada. If you want to keep your license as a medical doctor in Canada, you are obliged to mention MAID (Medical Assistance In Dying) as a ‘treatment’ option for certain conditions to your patients.

The implications are horrendous, but not exactly surprising.
Health care systems around the developed world are increasingly under strain that can only get worse with a quickly aging society. How long will it take before systems like the one in Canada become widespread? It does not have to be cruel or anything like that…..

All we need to do is to reach back to one of the founders of Fabian Socialism:

George Bernad Shaw was an unabashed, proud eugenicist.
The shameless, murderous virtue-signaling of the pro-choicer debaters reminded me of him.

We have to ask: what’s the difference?
What’s the difference between the not yet sentient embryo and the 90-year-old suffering from dementia?
And what use is to society the 60-year-old cat lady who never bothered to produce 2.1 healthy tax-payers for said society?
Or the LGBTQ2YMCA alphabet people, for that matter? Or the lazy gypsies and the filthy Jews? Or the class-enemies and the basket of deplorables?

The scariest lesson of these debates is the realization that our whole civilization is on the slippery slope.
… and it DOES START with the championing of the nonchalant termination of budding human lives.

I will measure the success of this post not just on the likes and comments, but mostly on your engagement with the following references.
The post above barely scratches the surface of the problem.
It also touches on several subjects that need much more attention than I can give them in a single post:
- The effects of depopulation;
- The failure of feminism;
- The failure of the welfare state; and
- The mating crisis
I will most definitely address them at some point. If you want stay with me, please subscribe.
In the meantime, feel free to explore the links below. I marked the best.