Abortion: Only conservatives care

Posted by Pericles on May 29, 2005, 07:52 AM | #

Hell’s teeth.

I shall tell you why I support abortion.

Middle class parents want better things for their kids. They work and do not rely on the state. In the UK, B’liar’s government undermines the middle class, because he is a elitist scumbag.

My parents did the best they could for. I do the best I can for my kids. Where do our taxes go? Spent to house single mothers who do not know the names of the fathers of their bastard progeny. Sorry JJR, but you are flat wrong here. Abortion is not murder. It is a sensible programme to control the growth of the witless. Quality, not quantity is the issue here.

Sensible people control their fertility and abortion is necessary sometimes as no system is 100%. I am willing to bet you grew up in a two parent family committed to your well-being. I did and
so have my lads although their mother and I divorced 13 years ago. We shared all responsibilities and they lived 3 nights with me and four with their mother. Two sets of friends in two localities. Best of both worlds really. It is a wise man who knows his own father.

Children are a privilege, not a right. IQ should be the determining factor, as well as the ability to pay. When I total up the cost so far…..........

Abortion is absolutely essential. Prevention is better than a cure, but we must have cures as well. Alchohol prohibition in the USA gave us Al Capone and subsequently the drugs trade.

Humans are pleasure seeking animals with a liking for mind altering substances. Life is a veil of tears and it is not surprising we seek escape from time to time. It is a little known fact that the USA also banned those other naughty pleasures back at the beginning of the 20th century. Why? Not understanding cause and effect.

As part of their campaign to get their legislation through, they showed photos of Andean Indian porters slumped on the ground, supposedly out of their minds on coca leaves chewed with lime and far too lazy to work.

The reason the Indians chewed the coca was that it cost nothing. They were starving because crops had failed and the coca dulled the hunger pangs. Pictures tell many stories and history is recorded by the winners.

Banning abortion is DYSGENIC. What Bush is doing to the USA is DYSGENIC. According to Richard Lynn, when the average IQ of a nation slips below 90, a technological way of life cannot be sustained. Last count for the USA was 98 and falling. Too many free riders!!

Pericles

Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 10:13 AM | #

“veil of tears”.  The expression is “vale of tears”

The high usage of abortion by blacks certainly supports your point.  Below is a comment I put up on my blog on 21st:

Freakonomics have a very strong defence of their claim that legalized abortion reduces crime.  Since American crime is so heavily black and black females are very heavy users of abortion it makes a lot of sense.  If abortion is ever re-restricted, allowing an exception for single mothers would make considerable sense.

Posted by gaylikeafox on May 29, 2005, 10:19 AM | #

Pericles does a good job showing why so many decent people recoil from the racial right. 

If we’re going to use abortion to restrict the numbers of the less-intelligent, why not just execute anyone with an IQ under 90?  It’s the exact same principle. 

Your argument is flawed regardless.  As Steve Sailer has pointed out repeatedly in his critique of the “abortion cuts crime” theory, the overwhelming majority of children aborted post-Roe would never have been conceived pre-Roe.  Banning abortion would not open the floodgates to fertility (they banned it in Poland after thirty years and the birth rate *dropped*).  When not given the option of any easy out, people modify their behavior.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 10:23 AM | #

“If abortion is ever re-restricted, allowing an exception for single mothers would make considerable sense.”

John you amaze even me!  Didn’t you just finish saying you thought it was murder?  How in the world can you favor “an exception” for single mothers?  Murder’s OK for single mothers?

John sometimes I get the idea you just make things up as you go along, to make everyone start tearing their hair out in frustration.  You’ve that malicious streak in you, I’m sure.  That’s why I never allow myself to get too, too upset over your opinions—half of them are aimed at exactly that effect.  Must make you feel important or something when you succeed.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 10:29 AM | #

“Pericles does a good job showing why so many decent people recoil from the racial right.”  (—Gaylikea fox)

There’s more than one way to be on the “racial right.”  I’m on “the racial right” and I differ strongly from Pericles as regards his views on abortion (which I never knew until this thread), stem-cell research, and the cloning of human beings.

Posted by edgar on May 29, 2005, 11:31 AM | #

I think Pericles is more of a transhumanist elitist than a racialist.

Posted by Laban on May 29, 2005, 12:20 PM | #

Following the Independent’s front page on how we evil Brits were killing Africans (by pinching all their medics) I have an abortion-related post up which may be of interest.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 12:42 PM | #

Laban,

that

was a very good log entry about little Lemba and the stark truth of her “alternatives”—to be born with a deformity (one which is routinely totally correctable today, as everyone knows) or to be snuffed out, extinguished, in the womb before birth.

Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 01:32 PM | #

“John you amaze even me!  Didn’t you just finish saying you thought it was murder?  How in the world can you favor “an exception” for single mothers?  Murder’s OK for single mothers?”

My thinking was that if we are going to have it, let it do some good.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 01:40 PM | #

Pericles,

The theory that abortion has contributed to less crime (by cutting the numbers of low IQ people) is BS.

Steve Sailer has rebutted this abortion cut crime theory with a throughness that you will rarely ever see in Social Science.

Abortion is a double edged sword. It may cull the numbers of low IQ children but it also induces a woman to be promiscuous because there is this additional safeguard in her mind that even if she does get pregnant, the pregnancy can always be terminated. Take away that “safeguard” and see what happens to female sexual behaviour (especially at the left end of the bell curve).

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 01:42 PM | #

I am a “moderate” on the abortion issue. I think it should be outlawed except in limited cases (such as rape or where early tests show that the baby might be born with severe deformities etc).

Posted by Lurker on May 29, 2005, 03:57 PM | #

I too was going to mention the Steve Sailer takedown of the abortion cut crime theory.

The most gormless, feckless underclass mothers go on breeding the next generation of criminals. The more intelligent rationally weigh up the situation and have abortions. Quite the opposite of what Freakonomics proposes.

Posted by dissidentman on May 29, 2005, 04:29 PM | #

Lurker wrote:

I too was going to mention the Steve Sailer takedown of the abortion cut crime theory.

The most gormless, feckless underclass mothers go on breeding the next generation of criminals. The more intelligent rationally weigh up the situation and have abortions. Quite the opposite of what Freakonomics proposes.

I agree. Moral and religious scruples aside, the only way abortion could benefit the west (from a conservative pro-western standpoint), would be if it were made mandatory in some cases. The leftists currently exulting in the glories of abortion would not like this idea at all.

Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 04:30 PM | #

“Steve Sailer has rebutted this abortion cut crime theory”

Have any of you read the rebuttal of Sailer’s rebuttal?  I gave you the link above

Posted by Lurker on May 29, 2005, 04:51 PM | #

In that link there is also Sailer’s rebuttal of the rebuttal of Sailer’s rebuttal!

Hey, this one could run and run…

Posted by gaylikeafox on May 29, 2005, 05:20 PM | #

I apologize for assuming that Chris’ views on abortion were representative of everyone’s on the racialist right.  Obviously if I had stopped to think about it for a moment I wouldn’t have made the assumption. 

I leapt to my response because it has been my experience that many on the racialist right get so gung-ho about their beliefs that they throw simple morality out the window.  (Though in this they aren’t all that different from many other ideological groups… Look at pro-choice feminists, who are so pro-woman they are blind to the humanity of the unborn.)  This is unfortunate because racialists make a lot of good points, in my opinion.  There ARE differences between the races which are almost certainly the result of 40,000 years of evolution in extremely different environments, and this is an issue that NEEDS to be addressed.  But when the people who do speak out on the issue are also talking about the murder of innocent human beings as a practical necessity, well, you are going to turn a huge number of reasonable people off from anything else you might have to say. 

The insistence on race realism is a moral position.  Not only do we have a general intellectual responsibility to face the world as it is, race denial results in assinine policies such as bussing, “no-child left behind” legislation, and the encouragement of massive third world immigration which sow the seeds of ethnic conflict, cripple the educational opportunities of the very children who are society’s hope for an improved future, and lower the overall standard of living for westerners while diluting our culture, respectively.  So it only makes sense for race realists to argue their position with basic principles of morality firmly in mind.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 06:18 PM | #

Gaylikeafox, that was an excellent, excellent comment, from start to finish.  An excellent, excellent comment.  Thank you for posting it.

Posted by Tim on May 30, 2005, 02:52 AM | #

Most of the abortion debate in the west today is framed in the “womens’ rights” versus “the unborn child’s rights” perspective. There is very little discussion of abortion’s wider social ramifications in terms on such mundane things as demographics, economics etc. This is quite unusual.

Most rights issues (for example the rights of gun owners or smokers) right or wrong, today, are mainly debated in broader utilitarian terms, e.g. disutility / risk to third parties, encouraging a ‘gun culture’, etc.

It is especially unusual for the main groups involved in the debate to argue from such an “individualist” perspective. Most of the “pro-choice” left seem to be anti-choice in pretty well every other sphere of life except sex and abortion. This is all a bit like the “war against (some) drugs”.

Elsewhere most of the “pro-choicers” argue for communitarian or welfarist considerations to outrank individual choice.

There are both communitarian and welfarist arguments against abortion. Here in Australia our abortion rate of 100,000 p.a. just about equals our annual immigration rate (corrected for returnees). So whatever economic or strategic arguments are used in favour of increasing population via immigration should apply with equal logic against abortion.

Similarly the demographic decline of western societies is certainly a major long term threat to the maintenance of welfare services. Where are our welfare lobbyists hiding during the abortion debate?

These odd “missing in action” instances indicate to me that abortion is now “sacred”.

The other side are not without sin either. Many anti-abortionists argue about the right to life, but aren’t always opposed to capital punishment or military pacifism. Still my guess is that it would be easier to persuade a right-to-lifer about these minor inconsistencies than a pro-choicer about their major inconsistencies. All told the right-to-life group is probably more consistent and genuinely tolerant than the pro-choice (some of the time) group.

Posted by Pericles on May 30, 2005, 03:51 AM | #

Yep,

“Vale of tears”. Agreed.

However, abortion is not a subject about which males have much personal experience. Pontificating about the rights and wrongs when a man is not the one facing the distress and reality of an unwanted pregancy, seems to me to be somewhat overbearing. It is a woman’s perogative to do what she wants with her body and a return to backstreet abortionists is barbaric. There is a demand for abortion and it should be easily available. It is “Civilised”

I checked back at my original posting to find out where I am supposed to have made the claim that crime has gone down as a result of abortion. Not there. It was JJR who mentioned Freakonomics.

Gaylikeafox.

“If we’re going to use abortion to restrict the numbers of the less-intelligent, why not just execute anyone with an IQ under 90?  It’s the exact same principle.”

No, it is not!  An embryo is like an acorn. In the right conditions, a human might be born, whilst in the right comnditions for the acorn, an oak tree may grow. “Potential” is the keyword here. I do not agonise about the sanctity of human life. There are millions of spontaneous abortions every month throughout the human population. Who wrings their hands in despair at the losses of all those potential Einsteins, those human souls, that are supposed to be created or recycled at the moment of conception by a skygod? Not me. Hell’s teeth. The rejection by a woman’s body, of a pinhead blastocyst that failed to implant or develop normally is nature’s way of “killing it before it grows”.

It is that kind of selfdelusional skypilot thinking that has been such a profound disaster for the human race. By believing in life after death, a second chance, so to speak, religion excuses beastly behaviour. Belief in ghosts and supernatural beings is understandable as an expanation for our ancestors. They did not know any better. Now, some of us know better.

I have a question. We are all the products of conception, one egg fertilised by one of millions of spermatoza loaded with a selection of alleles. What if it had not been that one , but another one, and you had different coloured eyes. Would you be you? Or, to put it another way, did the omnipotent skypilot designate that particular wriggler to do the dastardly deed in order to have the perfect vehicle for the soul just created or recycled and, this is the best bit, the skypilot, being all knowing, knows the destiny of that person? No free will ?

Come on, get a life!!

We have brains. We are supposed to think for ourselves. Superstition is not for us. If it is then we condemn ourselves to despair and the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Anthropology rules. We are clever apes and some are more clever than others.

Pericles

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 30, 2005, 08:13 AM | #

Sure sounds like Pericles has got all the answers, all right.  Chap’s got it all thought out ...

Posted by gaylikeafox on May 30, 2005, 10:29 AM | #

“However, abortion is not a subject about which males have much personal experience.”

Really?  Perhaps you could tell that to Mr. Brad Draper.  Oh wait, he’s dead.  He shot himself in the head of a Planned Parenthood in Kansas in protest over the fact that his son had been violently taken from him via abortion.  Well, there are always the men involved in the Silent No More Awareness Campaign and the numerous post-abortion healing groups across the country that you can try pitching that line to.  I wouldn’t attempt it anywhere over the internet, however.  People have a tendency to get upset when you tell them they have no personal experience with abortion after it caused them the death of their child.

Moving on, the embryo = an acorn “argument” is purposefully misleading.  An acorn is judged as “less” than a tree because a tree has functions outside itself which are beneficial to humanity which an acorn does not—i.e. we can use a tree for shade or chop it down and use it for shelter or heating, etc…  all things which an acorn cannot provide.  So it is only natural that we consider trees to be worth more.  But it is a complete misappropriation to apply that reasoning to human beings in the realm of the law for the simple reason that one human’s rights do not depend on his or her usefulness to others! 

A human embryo is a human first, an embryo second, in much the way that a human child is a human first, a child second or a human geriatric is a human first, a geriatric second.  What the pro-choice ideology does is section off an entire segment of humanity based on their state of biological development (really, their age) and says, “I’m sorry, but you don’t count!  You are not “human” enough for me to care about and people may dispose of you as they wish!”  That’s civilized?

I particularly enjoy how Pericles veers into some irrelevant philosophical tangent regarding religion, life after death, and spontaneous abortions in the course of his post.  I suppose if I were arguing something is backwards and self-contradictory as the pro-choice ideology, I’d be tempted to change the subject too! 

Anyway, the fact that there are spontaneous abortions all the time in nature proves… what, exactly?  That human beings die?  I think we already knew that.  The question is whether we have a “right” to commit murder, not whether humans are immortal. 

The rest of his post has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of fetal rights and is not worth replying to.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 30, 2005, 10:35 PM | #

An excerpt from

a recent log entry

of Mark Richardson’s:
______

I’d like to hear a liberal explain this one.

In 2003 a pregnant woman was violently attacked in NSW and tragically lost her baby. The attacker couldn’t be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter as the unborn child was not considered a “separate entity” from the mother.

In response, as Marcel White reports, the NSW Parliament has recently passed a new law which would make it an offense punishable by up to 25 years jail to kill an unborn child in an attack on a mother.

But where is the consistency in this? When a mother doesn’t want to complete a pregnancy, the state will actually pay for an abortion. The state does so many thousands of times a year. Therefore, you would think, the state has determined that there is no moral problem in deliberately killing the unborn.

But when a mother does want to complete a pregnancy, the killing of the unborn child suddenly attracts a penalty usually applied to manslaughter or murder. The unborn child in this case attracts the stern protection of the law.

As Marcel White observes,
“In the legal world, it seems like in some situations it’s a baby, and in other situations it’s a loose conglomeration of cells. All is contingent on whether the mother wishes to have a child.”

Posted by Pericles on May 31, 2005, 03:24 AM | #

Why does GLAF see a tree as being useful to humans, but not an acorn?  Sounds like he is of the opinion that a god has put man in dominion over the beasts of the field, the birds of the air and the plants and trees of the land. Oh really! That went out with the ark. We humans are only top of the heap by the skin of our teeth. 72,000 years ago, modern humans were down on their uppers. http://www.andaman.org/book/app-r/ch5_bottleneck/textr5.htm
What makes you think evolution of our species has stopped? The rising dominance of East Asians is part of this process and Brian Walden’s article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4586755.stm offers an explanation for this trend.

“we can use a tree for shade or chop it down and use it for shelter or heating, etc… all things which an acorn cannot provide.”

I am not backhauling my argument when I remark that we start from the fact that we evolved from more primitive hominids. That fact is central to the proposal that the concept of a soul is a creation myth, postulated to explain the challenges of the great outdoors, i.e.outside the entrance to the cave. Our ancestors needed explanations and they made them up. We still need explanations and we use scientific research, not soothsaying or outdated belief in ghosts.

Brad Draper; never heard of him, but obviously too stupid to live. Came from Kansa did he? Land of the creationist nonsense that the planet is only 6000 years old. Dead old Brad lost his potential son (acorn)in an abortion. The mother knew she did not want to carry Brad’s genetic package, probably for a very good reason. As the old adage has it, like father like so. the embryo that was aborted might have been just as unstable as Brad and there would have been two more nutters in Kansas instead of two less. GLAF, you know damn well I was talking about a woman’s pregancy and the way it affects her personally. Men, so far as we know, don’t get pregnant.

Fetal rights, are a wuss idea, put forward by bleeding heart liberals. Fred, what would be personally worse to a woman injured in an attack? To lose an unborn child or to lose a limb that will not grow back. Life can be horrendous and brutality is all around us. Neither option is acceptable, but, you might think about a woman might prefer. A close friend had a daughter, then two male miscarriages and then another daughter. Being intelligent and educated, she understood that the two miscarriages occurred because of fundamental flaws in the development of the two embryos. Nature again, you see. What she did not do, was think it was a god punishing her by killing her boys.

“As Marcel White observes,
“In the legal world, it seems like in some situations it’s a baby, and in other situations it’s a loose conglomeration of cells. All is contingent on whether the mother wishes to have a child.” So, what’s your point? Are you suggesting the NSW Parliament doesn’t know what it is doing? Show me a government that does!

Pericles

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 31, 2005, 08:12 AM | #

“Fred, what would be personally worse to a woman injured in an attack? To lose an unborn child or to lose a limb that will not grow back.”

Ask a pregnant woman, Pericles.  You might be surprised at the answer.

“What she did not do, was think it was a god punishing her by killing her boys.”

Whoever said this was the explanation of miscarriages?

” ‘In the legal world, it seems like in some situations it’s a baby, and in other situations it’s a loose conglomeration of cells. All is contingent on whether the mother wishes to have a child.’  So, what’s your point?”

That it’s a baby.