« More Republican Party history | Main | Response to TUJ's comment on abortion »

June 21, 2011

Comments

i think the big thing is not forcing tax payers to pay for unwed mother's children. plenty of people would volunteer to take care of kids whose moms and dads can't take care of them. in a pinch, the government can pay foster parents to take in children no one is willing to take care of. so getting pregnant and not being able to take care of the baby would become a huge pain in the butt for women, and their family who might be burdened, and so there would be more incentive to be careful yourself, and to teach your kids not to get pregnant. abortion would increase because there would be more downside to pregnancy, which is what you want, and the encouragement wouldn't come from the state but from the culture.

I'm for abortion rights, but I'm troubled by the fact the abortion rate is FAR, FAR too high to be explained by birth control failure.

There've been some posts on a minority news site I read about "The most dangerous place for a black/Hispanic girl is in the womb." They need to work a lot harder on the last part of President Clinton's trilogy.

There are a lot of laws/societal norms that are contrary to my individual interests. For example, if I killed a person with a much lower societal value, why can't I pay a blood fine, such as they did in old germanic societies. I am guessing if that was enacted, after a few years, it might have broad public support too. I would even settle for an anarcho/libertarian society, as long as it was complete. The problem now is that every interest group believes we should be libertarian about it's pet cause, and authoritarian about many others. I agree that the legacy of our JudeoChristian heritage is a bit of a problem

I agree, but be careful what you wish for. Societies that value human life highly have fringe benefits you may take for granted.

Abortion has benefits to society when blacks and poor people do it.

But, sanctifying the murder of a viable fetus leads to a moral slippery slope.

After all, a white fetus is more "desired" by society than a black infant. So, why can't we kill the black baby after it's born? What's so precious about unwanted life anyway?

Ultimately, abortion isn't right or wrong. It's a tool used in racial warfare(population control of undesirables). It can be used righteously, and it can be used in a degenerate way.

I'm anti-abortion, but I have to admit the children that are suffered to live nowadays, for the most part, seem to be more treasured than in the 1960s. Ridiculously so. There were so many kids back then, and it was so normal to have kids, that I think parents got kinda jaded. Those were the days of "go out and play on the freeway, heheheh..."

HS, long term birth control is a vastly superior tool for fighting dysgenic bastardy. An implant can prevent contraception for 12+ years, depending on which one is chosen. With abortion, You won't have anything close to a 100% abort rate for the desired demographic, pregnant unwed mothers. Using abortion instead of long term birth control is unnecessarily cruel and wasteful.

The left is against it because it sounds like eugenics; the right is against it because it condones premarital sex.

Reducing the bastardy rate is as vital as immigration restriction to the continued health of America.

Here ya go, an article on abortion in California:

http://www.whrc-access.org/pdf/Access-A_Portrait_of_Abortion_in_CA.pdf

"The demographic trends among women obtaining abortion indicate that abortion is more common among young, low-income and minority women. Fifty-two percent of women obtaining abortions are younger than aged 25; women aged 20-24 undergo one-third of all abortions; and, teens obtain 19% of all abortions. African American
women are nearly four times as likely as white women to obtain an abortion and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely."

I agree completely with Half Sigma. HS seems to think about the world as I do, which is why this is my favorite blog.

I also support infanticide. In the Roman Republic, one of the basic laws obligated fathers to kill any infants with obvious physical deformities. In classical Greece infants were bathed in ice water (or in Sparta, ice wine) and exposed overnight.

That sort of eugenics was primitive and we can do a lot better today, but I'm quite sure it helped increase the hardiness of the population stock. Fast forward to the Roman Empire where that tradition was lost, divorce was legalized, and primitive welfare policies (free grain for the poor in urban centers) were enacted. The result was a collapse in elite birth rates and huge increases in the numbers of the poor.

Is it surprising that Rome was overrun by Germanic barbarians in light of that?

We're going the same route, only we're so pathetic we're not even fighting them off. The Germanic barbarians were in some respects better than the Romans, whereas we are getting overrun by populations that are quite frankly pathetic.

Half Sigma, keep up the great work. You think about the world like I do, so this has become my favorite blog with the possible exception of Roissy. You've even reduced my antisemitism.

By the way, I come from a very high social class and run around the Chicago WASP social circuit. Liberals I run into hate my views, but they respect me. It has an effect. All of my friends are slowly turning into racists.

Jewish law is not as hysteric about abortions as the church. It might explain why you do not find it to be morally repulsive.

You Do know why voting is pointless and following politics even more pointless.

As long as eugenics isn't part of the platform all politics is "lipstick on pig".

AND it is the grossly disproportionate influence of your own people which is largely to blame for the failure of the eugenics movement in the West.

You DO know why voting is pointless and following politics even more pointless.

As long as eugenics isn't part of the platform all politics is "lipstick on pig".

AND it is the grossly disproportionate influence of your own people which is largely to blame for the failure of the eugenics movement in the West.

First of all, being “pro-life” does not require that one be against legal protection for abortion, as we saw with the 2008 election. McCain was considered pro-life because he thought abortion should be left up to the states. (He also lied about not flip-flopping.)

Thus, the abortion issue is actually an issue of the balance of power between the judicial branch and Congress, the meaning and import of the Constitution, the nature of the democratic element of our governance, and the yardstick of qualification for presidents and Supreme Court nominees. Abortion is a racial issue because judicial activism and rejection of the Constitution have been fundamental to the civil-rights movement against meritocracy and IQ testing. Liberals believe Roe v. Wade must stand because the Constitution is a living document and the courts are the most democratic branch because they anticipate how American culture is changing. Most liberals do not understand that most states would protect abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Indeed, states like California protect abortion in their state constitution. The contradiction in the liberal view is that changes in our body politic and culture are being driven to some extent by immigration. They have made it their highest priority to impose their view of abortion on states like Mississippi, but this urge does not extend to pro-life countries like Mexico. Mexican immigration is pushing America to one-party government even as it floods the country with pro-life Catholics.

With regard to the act of abortion, it is highly distasteful in late pregnancy, and it is usually a preventable situation. Therefore, moral judgments against women who have abortions are usually justified. On the other hand, abortion is also a natural process in early pregnancy that is more likely to occur in cases of chromosomal abnormality. In short, it is morally complicated, and most Americans do not neatly fit either of the two abortion positions. I recommend that people avoid needing an abortion and vote for conservative presidents because, regardless of one’s view on abortion, the related governmental issues are far more consequential. Abortion has come to overshadow those issues because most Americans are ignorant to them but have a visceral reaction to the issue of abortion.

Thorfinnsson post explains what I'm talking about perfectly. Once you accept abortion on a moral level, the leap to eugenics and death camps isn't far off. Putting a high value on human life has some very positive effects on society. Most of the rights you take for granted have a foundation in that respect for life.

[HS: Abortion was illegal in Nazi Germany. Abortion is legal today in the U.S., and never at any time in U.S. history has eugenics been considered so evil.

So there is no such connection between the two as you suggest there is.]

"eugenics and death camps"

As if these were equivalent. Thank you HS's people!

"Once you accept abortion on a moral level, the leap to eugenics and death camps isn't far off."

No its not because even pro-life people don't equate a fetus in the first 3 months of pregnancy to be equivalent to a baby or else pro-lifers would want abortion doctors and their patients to be charged with homicide in the same way baby killers are charged homicide.

Since pro-lifers don't support punishing abortion doctors the same way they support murderers of babies, one can conclude that, either consciously or unconsciously, even pro-life Christians (except for the occasional anti-abortion doctor sniper) don't feel a developing fetus should have the same legal and moral standing as a baby or grown adult.

"Abortion is the best tool we have for fighting a much bigger problem, and that is unwed mothers."

Even so, its still stupid for pro-abortion conservatives like Half Sigma to vote against a pro-life Republican for president solely because of the abortion issue simply because abortion isn't going anywhere.

The reason abortion won't be restricted anytime soon even if a pro-life Republican is elected is because college educated women want to retain the option to have an abortion as an insurance policy in case any "mistakes" are made. Granted, college educated women and their daughters generally use birth control and normally don't get pregnant, but unwanted pregnancies aren't so extraordinarily rare that the the middle and higher classes would want to completely lose the option of abortion because they college educated women have high enough future time orientation to understand that an unwanted pregnancy is not unheard of among young, educated women.

"Abortion was illegal in Nazi Germany. Abortion is legal today in the U.S., and never at any time in U.S. history has eugenics been considered so evil."

Yeah, for normal Aryans. The "unworthy" (which included criminal, degenerate, dissident, feeble-minded, homosexual, idle, insane, and weak Aryans) were sterilized or killed long after birth. Pretty much the Thorfinnsson policy in action!

Hey, Hitler was a big fan of Sparta:

"Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses."

"AND it is the grossly disproportionate influence of your own people which is largely to blame for the failure of the eugenics movement in the West.

Posted by: Hendrik Verwoerd | June 21, 2011 at 12:52 PM"

Actually, Eugenics failed despite the fact the most powerful and influential eugenics society in the world, the British Eugenics Society, was supported by many prominent Jews to point where the British Eugenics Society advertised the fact powerful British Jews were members and supporters of the society in order to disassociate themselves from Hitler's Eugenics.

It was actually Hitler, not the Jews, who destroyed the belief in sociobiology (and killed off European conservatism in general).

For example, Sir Julian Huxley (a relative of Aldous Huxley) was one of the leaders of the British Eugenics Society in the 1930's but wound up walking back almost everything he had written in favor of Eugenics by the end of the WWII and Huxley became a signatory to the UNESCO statement on race.

Hereditarianism was killed stone dead by the end of 1945 despite the fact prominent Jews supported the most powerful eugenics society in the West and even before the full scale of the Holocaust had been thoroughly analyzed.

Btw, Adolf would have been MORE likely to win the war if he had not antagonized the German Jews (who were happy to support and finance the Kaiser's WWI war effort) and driven all of those Jewish scientists like von Neumann into the arms of the Allies.

"college educated women have high enough future time orientation to understand that an unwanted pregnancy is not unheard of among young, educated women."

If you are intelligent and future-oriented, then unwanted pregnancy is not that much of an obstacle to your education and career. Many women can, and do, breed before their education is complete and their career is launched.

The real problem is not that unwanted pregnancy completely derails the life of college educated women, but that it is *inconvenient*. These women would rather murder a child than suffer that inconvenience and put a crimp in their pleasurable lifestyle.

"It was actually Hitler"

How long has Hitler been dead? A Europe w/o Jews would have NO immigration problem and would practice eugenics, as Sweden did until recently.

"How long has Hitler been dead?"

Almost as long as most of Europe's Jews have been.

"A Europe w/o Jews would have NO immigration problem and would practice eugenics, as Sweden did until recently."

Europe has few Jews left. The European elite is overwhelmingly gentile, yet their elite is even more liberal than the American elite is.

So if Europe's Jews were overwhelmingly destroyed, how come Europe doesn't have eugenics anymore?

Btw, Hitler, despite internet rumors to the contrary, was not good for Aryans.

He was going to exterminate about 100 million Easter Slavs to pave the way for German colonization of Eastern Europe.

The enslavement/deportation/starvation of tens of millions of Eastern Slavs would have been a disaster for the Aryan people because, according to new genetics studies which have been posted at Dienekes' blog prove the Slavs such as Russians, Belarussians, Czechs, and Poles are MORE PURELY NORTHERN EUROPEAN than the Germans are. The Germans have more genetic input from the Southern Europe which means Slavs are more Northern European than the Germans.

Not a Europe w/o Jews in Europe. Europe if there were no Jews anywhere.

Economic interdependence makes eugenics impossible. Any country which chooses some form of eugenics will be a pariah. As James Carvill said, "I used to think if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or a .400 baseball hitter. But now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody."

"Finally, the claim that abortion must be made illegal because it’s evil doesn’t hold up because the majority of people don’t think it’s so evil that it needs to be outlawed, and in times past it was considered acceptable to kill babies even after they were born. No one is going to be forced to commit the act themselves if they don’t want to (although they should be encouraged to do so for the reasons explained above). "

You are assuming that:

1. The majority of people believing that something is moral makes it moral.

2. An act is moral if one chooses to commit the act.

Both assumptions are rather obviously wrong.

The only thing that can be said about the abortion issue is that it can only be resolved by allowed biotechnology to complete the separation of sex and reproduction. Seriously. This is the only positive sum solution that allows everyone to get what they want.

abortion makes everyone more likely to have an accidental pregnancy, but not everyone is equally likely have an abortion. i think the best argument against abortion is that it is dysgenic. women have major attachment to their unborn children, even unwanted, and less intelligent women lack the future time orientation to think about the long term impact on their lives and are more likely to think they can make it, etc. smarter women have a long term plan.

Although it is a primarily liberal argument, a fetus--particularly in the early stages of development--is not a human. It is not conscience, cannot feel pain, cannot think, etc. It really is just a group of cells. Yes, by having the abortion, a woman is preventing a future life from coming into existence, but the same is true of any woman that chooses not to become pregnant. Any woman at a college that is not currently pregnant is preventing another life from coming into this world by not having sex with men.

The problem I have with abortion isn't that irresponsible people have abortions, but that semi-responsible people do. Responsible people use birth control consistently, indicating they have high IQ's, and thus avert unplanned pregnancies and the need for abortion. Less intelligent people use it less consistently and thus have unplanned pregnancies. The people of middling intelligence are more apt to abort the fetuses than plain stupid people are. Hence, I don't regard abortion as good eugenics, but rather as self-imposed dysgenics, because middling IQs are thinned out from idiotic ranks. I think it's a point Steve Sailer has made before.

"I agree, but be careful what you wish for. Societies that value human life highly have fringe benefits you may take for granted."

Yeah, Romania back in the good old days. All those lovely Catholic Latin American places..

Not buying it for a second.

"The real problem is not that unwanted pregnancy completely derails the life of college educated women, but that it is *inconvenient*. These women would rather murder a child than suffer that inconvenience and put a crimp in their pleasurable lifestyle."

So would I. Call me a murderer too. Don't care.

Why stop at abortion? Why not genocide of untermenschen? That would also reduce welfare costs, and reduce the number of low-IQ children.

It is true that many of the most prominent nurturists are Jewish.

I've always wondered why unrestricted immigration is solely the Jews' fault. Like the Chamber of Commerce doesn't want cheap labor.

Incidentally, here's a little project I've wondered about: do European Jewish intellectuals tend to be less anti-American than other European intellectuals? It would seem according to group selection theories they'd want to protect their kin over here. BHL certainly seems to have enjoyed his little trip over here.

" new genetics studies which have been posted at Dienekes' blog prove the Slavs such as Russians, Belarussians, Czechs, and Poles are MORE PURELY NORTHERN EUROPEAN than the Germans are."

Which just goes to show that pure Northern Europeans aren't so great. Germans were the de facto cultural and political rulers of Eastern Europe for over one thousand years, right up through 1945. The pure Aryan stock were mostly peasants. The cultural, economic and military leaders of Europe have generally been the people at the crossroads between North and South - English, Northern French, Dutch, Southern Germans, Northern Italians. Perhaps not coincidentally there is a lot of Celtic blood in all these peoples.

JUST Join and watch NOW!
Thx!

The comments to this entry are closed.