New York Abortion Rates - Good News?

[Debaser11]

Maybe because you're a bit selfish, frankly.

My last point was completely lost on you. Sticking up for the traditional family and wanting one myself is "selfish"? So I'm "selfish" for wanting to responsibly engage in one the most basic matters of human function (pro-creating) without being guilted by self-righteous liberals for not cleaning up some one else's mess? It matters not that I want to center my life around the idea of family so that the society I live in can be more healthy? That has no bearing on my character to you because I don't expouse the fake virtues of social crusading?

People who pro-create and actually raise their kids well are some of the least selfish people in the whole world even if they don't support some of the stupid liberal nonsense that you do. I could say you're a selfish little person for valuing your kind over all those little black babies you want out of your country. Why don't you adopt one if you're so high and mighty? Why do you want third world people out of your country? They're happier there. You aren't selfish, are you?

I make philosophical arguments against altruism that go way over your head, apparently. As it stands, you know ABOLUTELY nothing about my personal life.

Non-selfish acts don't only come in the form of supporting your secular-liberal notions of what's right. I'd be happy to weigh my personal track record of charitable acts against yours. As much time as I spend posting on this site, your post count dwarfs mine. There's no question you spend a ton of time on here. You have over ten thousand posts. That's a lot of hours. I could argue that your time spent on here is very likely a measure of your own capacity to be pretty f*cking selfish, indeed. You could certainly put all the time you spend here to some real practical use. Put your money where your big mouth is.

You go adopt a kid and substitute all the time you spend on here raising someone else's kid. No? Doesn't sound too good, after all? Well if that's the case, at least I'm not the hypocrite you are.

I'd also add that an apologist for liberal hedonism such as yourself is far from understanding what true selfishness really is nor would I take it that such a person has any ethos on the nature of true sacrifice.

I recommend you not to take up the following jobs: anything in the medical or educational branches. And also stay out of the police force because you might have to look after someone's child then one day.

Some homeless guy needs a reach around, Dr. Schweitzer. Get to it!

[Agrippa]

A selfish person can still do a competent job as a policeman/policewoman, or as a doctor or other kind of healthcare provider. However, you are paid for a job; altruism implies doing something without expectation of reward.

Well, I know what you mean, but it is the wrong argumentation, because Altruism, if being healthy, is still always based on individual interests.

It is just that it is not necessarily immediate, material, personal reward.

To say it blunt, if you can't watch people suffering without doing something, you might help without any reward, but you do it, because YOU can't live with the situation. So in the end, you do it to bring yourself back to a mental balance. And this specific personality was constructed, if being no abnormal variant, to help the own genes - in the end.

So every such analysis must look for WHAT REWARDS somebody is expecting to get and which mechanisms are working for this or that individual's motivation, what genetic and memetic-environmental influences constructed that mechanisms.

There is always interest, there is always reward, but different ones.

Some people are just selfish-useless, because they can only be motivated by very direct and material rewards. Others might be motivated with social acceptance more than anything else and again others function with higher level moral-ethical and psychological mechanisms.

Most people however, if not all, are a combination and they might act more like this in that field, more like that in another. F.e. a religious person giving a great deal of its time and wealth to a church, while being personally an asshole in business and looking for material wealth only there. People can be really "split" too, which makes things even more complicated.

But in the end, one can distinguish different personality types and we will be able to do so much better in the future. Some people are just "corrupt by nature" without any higher level ethical considerations or "altruist" behavioural mechanisms. Those are problem cases, like born criminals.

Others might be more this or that, but play in a good norm and some are able to function on the highest level, producing higher (rational) Idealism which determines most of their behaviour.

Those must be the rulers, which lead the rest, because today, we are being led by corrupted Sociopaths and speculators, that is a big problem. And if being led by such subjects, you influence (culturally-memetically-environmentally) many of those which would be otherwise, in another environment, in a good norm too, because you give them a (bad) role model in Capitalism.

So you must eliminate the worst parts on the longer run, at least from power, and make up good role models for the large mass of normal variants, until you reach through various measures, including Eugenic-Euphenic, a higher level of the whole group participating.

To root out the most destructive and corrupted behaviour, you must find and eliminate the true reasons, both in the genpool and the mempool. There is no excuse nor any other alternative, because people being what you bred them for and today you breed corruption and morons, nothing mankind will need nor save.

[Magister Eckhart]

Genes or nature determine predispositions for certain attitudes, morals and actions. Environment influences whether these predispositions are activated or not. The same personalty determined by nature act differently in different situations, but different actions don't negate single personality, which could be viewed as combination of all actions in all situations.

I accept that, it's just not what he initially said; I see he's expanded on his assertions now, and I am a little more willing to agree with these than just wit the blanket "all personality and behaviour is inherited".

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure personality isn't itself shaped by experience. The core predispositions are there, to be sure, but the entire personality, formed already at birth? That's a bridge too far for me, especially because I see how adopted children adapt and are shaped by their surroundings, and how they come to reflect their parents despite coming from a completely different gene pool. Children learn by watching, and part of our personality is the kind of thinking and behaviour to which we find ourselves predisposed from learning and observation.

Furthermore, having different childhood experiences from one's parents can also have a significant influence on one's personality, how one is predisposed to regard other people, how one forms friendships, etc.

I'm not saying that it's entirely nurture, but I don't think you can claim its entirely nature either. Cultural influences play a tremendous role as well. There's a lot more going on in human beings than just genetics.

Why is reproduction selfless?

But you could expand time and energy on other peoples children instead of your own, if you were selfless.

I was not advocating people care for others children. I just don't see how caring for ones own children is selfless.

I think we've all gone off the wrong track here because of a simple matter of interpretation. "Selfish" and "Selfless" are not diametrically opposed categories with a clear border between them - they are not, in short, black-and-white. Breedingvariety is in fact correct here, to show equal care for other's children as for your own is most selfless, which is why it is advocated by selfless religions like Christianity.

However, Breedingvariety, if you would say that it is selfless to show this sort of attention toward all children, I might submit to you that this only makes abortion of a child you don't want to expend any time or energy on all the more selfish.

Normal human behaviour, i.e. having a child and caring for it, rests somewhere in between these two. One gives everything one has for the good of one's child - that is good parenting, and I think only a callous man could say there is not selflessness in that. But it is true, objectively any given parent could do even more by expending energy on all children, and, by extension, all people.

In a way you could have lot's of children and little care for them or few children with much care for them. Both are selfish race survival strategies.

You cannot reduce human behaviour down to just "survival strategies". You completely fail to take into account reason, emotion, and higher inclinations like love, hope, and caring. These aren't simply things that can all be explained away and boiled down to DNA and biology.

When a couple decides to have a child, rarely are they thinking about "race survival strategies". Having a child is an act of caring, a desire to raise a child can be a measure of selfishness, as you have illustrated, in that one wants to shape that child's life, but can also be far more selfless, in that one wants a person to love entirely, and a child provides that by being entirely us as parents.

A child, spiritually speaking, is two-become-one in marriage in the most concrete way. I'm not saying people are philosophically reflecting on this, either, but the drive to have children is far more than a simple biological imperative in humans, which is part of what makes sexual intercourse within marriage so central to society, and what makes sexual intercourse itself a sacred act, and what makes treating it like some kind of hedonistic outlet for base desires so abominable. There is, as almost all cultures down through history have recognised (except Negroes, for some reason), something sacred about sexual intercourse that makes our coitus fundamentally different than animal copulation.

In this way, there is something very selfless in the true feelings of love that produces a child, and the feelings of love and lovingkindness that one feels in raising that child - regardless of what culture one exists in, these are present; things that make abuse of children, abortion, and exploitation of children all the more unnatural and unholy for many people.

Now, that having been said, people are completely capable of throwing away their humanity and becoming animals - that's what separates us from beasts: we can make a choice. Some people are born animals. In these cases it seems to me that abortion is a social good because of the work it does to curb the growth of animal populations. I have to agree with an earlier post, however, that neutering of animals is a far better method of control than encouraging abortion, if for nothing else because its simpler.

In the US of A things are different from Europe, because in many European countries the women have a more rational attitude towards abortion, with less of a religious and pseudo-religious moral. Generally, that would be fine, but in the current context, this leads to many of them aborting their children.

In some regions the abortion rates are much higher than for non-Europeans, I can assure you that, so it is NOT, it is not primarily genetic, in my opinion, but largely depends on other factors.

F.e. how many sexual affairs do women have, how do they use contraceptives and how lasting are their relationships. Obviously, it is insance to carry on the embryo of a man which left the woman long ago and won't care about the baby if it would be born, unless it is about the last chances of this woman to procreate successfully in this life.

I never thought I'd agree this much with anything Agrippa said, but I find very few flaws in this. The last portion there I have to critique, though. If the man leaves a woman, is abortion really necessarily the answer? What about in the cases of the woman being widowed? Does that necessitate killing the child as well? What about a man who leaves a woman after the child is born? How would you differentiate among these cases and how "insane" it is to keep and care for these children?

I think sometimes we lose sight of our moral imperatives when we speak only in terms of such cold rationality, something that is dangerous because it starts us down the path of becoming animals or worse.

But since most of them have still hope, because many which abort want children, just not at that point in their life, that the conditions could get better, they prefer to abort. It is as simple as that.

I'm still not sure why this isn't a strong argument for adoption.

Especially in Eastern Europe whole generations being aborted, and abortion is there not such a moral and religious menace like the countries in which Christianity is still an important cultural factor for many.

So who does abortions most often depends also on socio-cultural factors, definitely.

I do agree with that, it's simply fact. I don't know how I feel about calling religion and morality "menaces". Religion is not evil, and how one could call morality menacing... it seems like an oxymoron to me, and sounds rather like the battle cry of the Cultural Marxists you and I both despise. I'm not saying you're one of them, just that you may not know to what extent you've been affected by their indoctrination.

Point is, the abortions are not the most crucial problem to me, because unwanted children from affairs are hardly what will cure Europeans, but the real problem is the absence of the rule of blood, familiy ties and community (Gemeinschaft).

This is true for the USA as well largely, but not as much regionally, individually of course. And it began with Christianity, "funnily", in which there is no rule of blood in the religious texts, but just the egalitarian approach which always prefers the "next world" and "afterlife" before this life.

Such an attitude made what followed, in a way, much easier.

Agreed. Christianity broke the rule of tribe and clan over time. In some cases they still reign, but for the most part they are dead.

So it is an old "Western sickness" to say it blunt, which just got TOTALLY out of control recently, mainly due to Liberalism and Cultural Marxism.

I say specifically Cultural Marxism, because birthrates and positive selection for Europeans was among the best in various "Communist" countries, and worst in some "Western" countries, in which Cultural Marxism, including radical feminism, anti-discrimination laws, free-cheap sexuality, many foreigners, "career before everything" and other stupid rules of Liberalcapitalism and Cultural Marxism were applied.

Agreed.

Talking about solutions, abortion is a useful tool for individuals and the group, the problems lie deeper and a solution should try to dig deeper: It must mean to change our societies, to change them from societies of Liberal individuals to a community, a Gemeinschaft and rules which make to every single member the value of blood, ancestry and offspring clear.

Many people and cultures practising abortion and even infanticide knew that and flourished, that is not crucial for this. Yet they would have - almost never - killed a healthy baby coming from a regular marriage, unless having not enough food, the child was deformed or the like, or the rules of inheritance could cause serious problems - an old degeneration of many of these societies in the West in particular.

You cannot create a Gemeinschaft, though; it must be naturally occurring or it's just another Gesellschaft with a prettier face.

I'm not sure I can think of an infanticidal culture anywhere in the past that would just kill off a child because of inheritance or food shortages, unless it was the act of an individual man. Even the Spartans valued healthy children from good families more than that.

But as you can guess, we are far, far removed from any of such communities by now, in the West, in all countries. The disease just has somewhat different forms if travelling from the USA to Great Britain, from there to France, to Germany, Poland or Russia.

But in the end, some basic problems stay the same: The lack of community, the lack of blood rules.

This is certainly true, which is why I'm associated myself with an Aristocratic vision, and a rule of the highest and the best over the lowest and naturally inferior. You will find almost universally that persons born to the higher castes are always more aware of the rule of discipline, morality, and of blood-ties than their peasant counterparts.

However, that's a different discussion for a different thread.

[Agrippa]

The last portion there I have to critique, though. If the man leaves a woman, is abortion really necessarily the answer?

Yes, especially if the woman is young, can get more children later and has no children so far.

Because she will lose partner value with a child and male is biologically irrational if caring for a foreign child as much as for his own - even more so if the child is not closer to him genetically-by traits than any average child of the population.

So a woman ruins her life and her partner value in every more rational group if getting the child of a father who doesn't care at all, unless it is her only chance to get a child at all and a partnership (f.e. if she's a whore or bitch) is out of question anyway.

But any more decent woman: I would never recommend to bear the child, unless it would be genetically highly valuable, if she has the chance for getting offspring in a partnership with a man WHO DOES CARE.

The child of the foreign man who left her will be always ballast for the rest of her life and future relationships.

Of course, it can't and shouldn't be prevented in all cases, but it is reasonable to abort in many of those instances if having the choice.

The problem today is not this, but that many of this woman abort, just to be more careful the next time and finally die childless, because their traditional role will be never fulfilled in Western Capitalism.

In such cases it is often the more intelligent, rational and valuable woman which abort - because they plan their life.

But usually, they learn their lesson, which is why I referred to "more abortions in a row" for the lowest level scum.

What about in the cases of the woman being widowed? Does that necessitate killing the child as well? What about a man who leaves a woman after the child is born? How would you differentiate among these cases and how "insane" it is to keep and care for these children?

Every woman has to bear the child 9 months to birth, her body might be "damaged" and she used up a lot of energy to keep that life. After birth, all the pain and problems which come with it, she put another investment in it. Then it goes on, to the first years - investment again.

And of course: We deal with a real person, a conscious human being too.

And of course: The partner might not have been ideal, he might have died or it broke up, but at least he cared more. That is a positive selection and she can tell her child too, that the father cared, at some point at least.

I see a wholly different situation then.

But not necessarily for the new man: From the past we know, that many human groups, especially the more successful, acted similar to lions. If they conquered a whole population, they killed and enslaved all men and took the women as their own.

Sometimes they recruited the foreign boys for their army, conditioned them and sent them into battle in the first row, with their spears behind them.

Not only the Turks did so, many people, throughout history.

There a huge difference emerges: The unborn and newborn is no group member, it must be accepted first. So especially the unborn can be judged much more critically.

The born however, means the large investment of the female and a much closer position to the person. So it will be judged more mildly. And once the person fully emerged, it got all rights on its own.

That is not just rational, but that is how most more successful human groups of the past saw it.

I think sometimes we lose sight of our moral imperatives when we speak only in terms of such cold rationality, something that is dangerous because it starts us down the path of becoming animals or worse.

Rather not. Animals we are, rationality is what makes the difference. Because we can choose, we can plan, we can do even better than an animal. But for doing so, we must understand some basic rules and principles, the rules and principles of nature - the nature in which we were born.

We can use the rules to our advantage, but we can't change them, because greater powers determined them before we existed. So it is moronic to try to ignore them or dream oneself into a world which doesn't exist. We were thrown into this world, into this mess, now we have to use our qualities to make the best out of it. For the individuals and the group.

We shouldn't fall back into Barbarism, but neither can we ignore the truth nor do we ourselves and future generations a favour if don't acting accordingly.

I'm still not sure why this isn't a strong argument for adoption.

Because of the high investment for the woman. Why should a woman be forced to carry on the fruit of a male who probably doesn't care for the child at all? And why should foreign people raise that child instead? This just means to foster such traits rather than eliminating them.

And I might add, adoption is fine, but one should always rely on children as close as possible. F.e. if the sister of the pregnant woman can't get chilren, it would be more rational than to adopt "any child".

I simply don't want to force a woman to go through all the hardships of pregnancy for a child she - logically and rationally absolutely correctly - doesn't want.

You cannot create a Gemeinschaft, though; it must be naturally occurring or it's just another Gesellschaft with a prettier face.

That would be a great progress compared to what we have already!

Even more so, you can create a Gemeinschaft, if you think otherwise, you misunderstood things. In the past, it was always done by people with a strong will and power.

THE HIGHER ORDER GEMEINSCHAFTEN never came out of nothing! They were only based on something naturally grown, which is what we still have, our nations and European races and culture, this is why the Plutocracy wants to destroy it, to never make it possible again!

Because after the people are destroyed and fractionised, you really have to "scrap build" everything newly, with a much stronger ideological impetus than if starting from something naturally grown like a common racial and cultural characteristic.

But in the end, it was always a strong belief and rule which brought and kept people together!

I'm not sure I can think of an infanticidal culture anywhere in the past that would just kill off a child because of inheritance or food shortages, unless it was the act of an individual man. Even the Spartans valued healthy children from good families more than that.

I read statistics for Medieval places with a specific inheritance pattern: It was the rule in some places among the more wealthy, believe me! It was not always recorded, they simple poisened, let them starve to death or laid them at the window in winter...

In the end, the assymetrical death records speak for themselves in many villages.

That is a huge problem from the start, because the better variants then had less children, even in Medieval times already, than those for which "every helping hand was useful".

Herders did so in Neolithic and Bronze Age, there offspring was taller, rangier, more progressive and valuable, but they had fewer children than the farmer which didn't cared as much about his offspring, many died early, but in the end, more survived still - r- and K-selection is active in humans too and it is a large part of the current contraselection - at least if not being produced by Capitalism-Liberalism and Cultural Marxism directly.

This is certainly true, which is why I'm associated myself with an Aristocratic vision, and a rule of the highest and the best over the lowest and naturally inferior. You will find almost universally that persons born to the higher castes are always more aware of the rule of discipline, morality, and of blood-ties than their peasant counterparts.

Yes, but that is both genetic and envioronmental and it doesn't free the better class of people from their responsibility for other humans.

There must be a humane and as efficient as effective way to improve the quality of the group and this can just mean Eugenic-Euphenic programs. Everyone with a good will should be cared for, even if those which are not so well of or as good. Because a real improvement should be always only as hard as necessary, as nice and humane as possible. And in any case: It will need time anyway. You can't change many things to the better in just some years, that won't work, the leading people have to know it and plan on the longer run, making corrections of their plans if necessary.

Everything depends on the leadership and this must be driven by higher (rational) Idealism.

[Austin]

Well say what you want about America's white populations fixation with religion but it has saved tens of millions of white babies whereas in Europe such babies would have been (and in many cases were) aborted due to the lack of religious undertone.

In Texas I see this firsthand and very clearly and not just among the lower classes of the white community. From talking to other girls in other states from various social backgrounds it is clear that their Christian-upbringing and view of abortion was the reason their son or daughter came into existence. In Texas if a white girl gets pregnant there is a very good chance, as in above 60%, that no matter her social class she will have the child, usually as a single mother with parental support.

This is the case in most other states as well. There is a clear religious aspect to it but to the trained eye there is also a clear racial, white-is-special undertone to it. This is largely due to a white population thrust up against a black/non-white one. It creates a sense among whites in the U.S. that their children are something more whereas I imagine this is not so in much of Europe due to lack of a burgeoning black populace.


The U.S. version of troubled young women:

-becomes pregnant

-under twenty-two/no degree/high-school education/minimum-wage employment

-informs her parents, fury erupts, leaves the guy + attains child support on her parents instruction

-abortion is decided against, she keeps child as single mother w/parental support

-her life is made more difficult goal/fiscally-wise, unless she is uniquely-driven in life, which most aren't who become pregnant so young, yet she survives and continues on to have more children later in life

-her child is born however rather than aborted, being quasi-raised by her financially-stable parents, It's true many decline from there on in life, usually being used by various sexually-motivated males (Few eligible, fiscally-stable single guys will settle for a single mother with no job prospects...yet they will have sex with them.....as many single mothers find out to their ultimate dismay)

What I suspect is the European version, based on European abortion data in addition to Europe's more secular nature and Europe's lack of a burgeoning black population to help emphasize whiteness such as is the case in the U.S.

-becomes pregnant

-under twenty-two/no degree/high-school education/low-wage employment

-informs her parents, fury erupts, leaves the guy + attains child support ((+)) decides on abortion through her own decision amplified with her parents advice, zero-religious and or racial-undertone at play here unlike in the U.S.

-her life goal/fiscally-wise is spared yet her white European child is not

-goes on to gain fiscal independence/complete her studies, deep embitterment towards family-raising and future childbirth, becomes extremely independent

-will have, if she allows herself to, one or two children at around the age of thirty, numerically-dooming the European populace long-term


Both versions are obviously devastating in different ways, yet I'm sorry secular Europeans but I still would rather have a burgeoning, ignorant religious fervor among whites in America so as to preserve our numbers over a secular, declining-free-fall birth rate scenario due to no emphasis on childbirth at all due to lack of religious/racial fervor.

[The Lawspeaker]

You're actually wrong as for what I have seen abortions are rare here. People use what is called "contraceptives" and I have only known a few people that ever had one.

But maybe it differs from country to country. As unlike America there is not one European attitude.

[Austin]

You're actually wrong as for what I have seen abortions are rare here. People use what is called "contraceptives" and I have only known a few people that ever had one.

But maybe it differs from country to country. As unlike America there is not one European attitude.

Nono I'm not saying it is common in Europe or America among whites, it isn't, and yes I know Europe has lower abortion rates among Europeans than among whites in America. There are reasons for this, mostly as you said, because of the religious aspect of America and abortion being more taboo here among whites who do become pregnant.

But it is undeniable. A secular society fosters indifference to abortion, whereas a non-secular society fosters intense social shame in respect to abortion. There are many places in white-America where having the child is more socially respectable than aborting and continuing your studies. I doubt this is the case near-anywhere in secular white-Europe.

There are tens of thousands of cases in Texas and all of the U.S. where the pretty white girl gets pregnant, the guy is told-off and her parents help her financially raise the child and continue to go to school on their tab. Is this better than the secular European version where the child is aborted? I don't know, surely from a European-peoples-numerical standpoint it is, seeing as the naive young girl will eventually have more children when she gets married later in life. This is why I support the Christian zealotry, the Zionist's and Israel, and the Evangelical right. Their idiotic ideology keeps that idiotic girl from aborting her white child out of some religious sense of worth. Do I care about the religious aspect? No, fuck it. But I do care, and align with the religious aspects, due to what they do to maintain white offspring.

[Curtis24]

the better variants

But if they're not having children, are they really better variants? That's my main point - if a woman doesn't have any children, then it is probably due to some sort of personality flaws that shouldn't be passed onto future generations. I'm not saying such people can't contribute, however its best that their egotism isn't genetically passed on.

Being professionally skilled - "progressive" - isn't all there is to a good society. You need compassion, cooperativeness as well, and if so-called progressive types don't breed because they can't bring themselves to deal with the inconvenience of having a child, so much the better in the long-run.

[Agrippa]

But if they're not having children, are they really better variants? That's my main point - if a woman doesn't have any children, then it is probably due to some sort of personality flaws that shouldn't be passed onto future generations. I'm not saying such people can't contribute, however its best that their egotism isn't genetically passed on.

Point is: They produce children which are more valuable, if getting offspring.
Point is: They proved to be very successful, at all times when higher individual and group selection was active
Point is: They fail because they live in a system constructed to make them fail
Point is: They often want children, but being told that this would be irresponsible, stupid, asocial etc. and they have too high demands for the men, similar things can be said about the men of that category.
Point is: The other variants don't get more children because they are better in any way, but because they are more stupid, irrational and unplanned. Often they don't even really care as much for their children, nor do they produce variants which are as valuable for the group.

Many of those highly valuable females still get offspring, but fewer and fewer and if, usually never more than 3 children, often just one.

Being professionally skilled - "progressive" - isn't all there is to a good society.

Yet it is very important, crucial for our success and development.

You need compassion, cooperativeness as well, and if so-called progressive types don't breed because they can't bring themselves to deal with the inconvenience of having a child, so much the better in the long-run.

Many of them achieve and do more for other people and the group, they just don't get more children, because they being raised with values in which the rule of blood has no place.

In the past, when this rules were active, they were often the most successful and keen mothers, but now, they often think they "can do more", without having a family, they think they can do more "for the children's person", if just having one or two children.

That's everything being told to them, they are conditioned for that, and since they are more rational and intelligent, as well as planned beings, unlike the drug bitch next door making 4 abortions and getting 5 children which she gives for adoption, they make their plans, ethics and goals real - more often.

This means in this Liberalcapitalist society: Less offspring.

That is no biological principle in them, they are often even more fertile and feminine than the average, they would have been biologically more successful under most conditions, especially those with higher demands, in individual and group selection. But those days are gone and now contraselection, dysgenic trends rule.

Now that has to be changed.

You can make up a society in which the most intelligent and most valuable human beings don't breed, the most stupid and dangerous subjects do, selection for humans, this social and cultural species, means always to consider the structures HUMANS THEMSELVES BUILD AROUND THEM!

Some say "Eugenic measures intervene", yes, but for the better! And there is always intervention! If you don't do it in a planned way, for the good of the people and group, it will happen accidently through our culture and so far, this has proven that in our mass societies negative social niche variants are more successful biologically than those on which our very survival and higher culture being relies upon.

[Debaser11]

Some people are born animals. In these cases it seems to me that abortion is a social good because of the work it does to curb the growth of animal populations. I have to agree with an earlier post, however, that neutering of animals is a far better method of control than encouraging abortion, if for nothing else because its simpler.

I realize you were careful to distinguish that not all people are born animals, here. However, I still feel that given the emphasis you placed on nurture in your previous post, this sentiment seems a bit perplexing. Sticking with nurture for a minute--think about how well the black community was doing (relatively speaking) when they had a Christian direction that would have never condoned such a practice. Now a look at them. Sixty percent of black pregnancies end in abortion. Think about what that type of normalization does to a community. How can a community that has that type of view on life be expected to be anything other than dysfunctional? And while the blacks are extreme examples, the negatives translate to the general culture as a whole (imo).

I also think that normalization is a big problem with regards to abortion. (I used to be pretty pro-choice, myself.) If I'm not mistaken, Spengler has some pretty interesting insights on this question of life that I need not quote to you.

But it must do something almost irreparably harmful to a culture's psyche to have social norms which imply that innocent life is disposable. Do you not see the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater by having society grow accustomed to the idea that innocent life can be terminated? Trying to excuse it because some people are "animals" seems like a cheap shortcut to me. The negatives reprecussions for taking such shortcuts will surely visit every inch of society no matter what pragmatic purpose one might think such a practice serves.

And I'm sure you're aware of how abortion is directly linked to the sexual revolution and feminism. So again, I'm a bit surprised that this is your view on the matter.