My Ambivalence about Abortion

Snivel Rights

It had been illegal for some time for a White working as a cop or a judge, or running a school, or some other government service, to say anything insufficiently obsequious about the Negro race to anyone they didn’t completely trust.  The function of the Civil Rights Act was to extend this to anyone employing people, anyone working in an office, or anyone working in a customer-facing position.  For those working in those positions not of the cognitive elite, who would be unable to not say what they think, this meant they would be unable to think hatethoughts.

Legality and Morality

Piously stated platitudes from glibertarians and liberals put aside, most people expect, demand, and assume that only immoral things will be illegal, all moral things will be legal, and most immoral things will be illegal.

Shockingly, to our modern man, marital rape was not illegal until very recently.  However, rape could be accused of a husband if the wife was not cohabitating, and, sodomy was illegal.  Rape could be accused because it could be proven; sodomy could also be accused if it could be proven; consent or its withdrawal between bedpartners usually can not be proven.  But a husband could rape his wife no more than once, and could not do anything that would leave signs of sodomy; thereafter, the wife could leave.  In the age of text messages, consent should be a bit easier to prove or disprove.  Marital rape went from being an immoral thing that was not illegal to an immoral thing that was illegal.

When marital rape was not illegal, it was legal to sell heroin to people.  This is somewhat less shocking – it would have been more shocking 20 years ago, but since then, for some reason there’s a meme that the drug war failed because it couldn’t succeed instead of because people didn’t want it to succeed.  At any rate, selling heroin went from being an immoral thing that was not illegal to an immoral thing that was illegal.

Selling marijuana or (high-quality) amphetamines is less obviously immoral; selling lottery tickets, alcohol, and pornography is also less obviously immoral.  Some of these things have become or will become legal soon; one of them has recently become illegal.

A glibertarian might be excused for thinking that there is a grey area between morality and legality, and thus, pushing for legalization of everything and each individual bearing their choices on their own conscience.  But I brook no excuses for open heresy or leading others into temptation; i.e. doing the work of Satan.

The glibertarian will avoid heroin, or excessive use of alcohol, marijuana, amphetamines, pornography, or excessive gambling, because he is of the cognitive elite.  The man on the street thinks that because it is legal, that means it is safe and morally acceptable (these are one and the same), and is enslaved to heroin, pornography and its view of human sexuality, gambling, and Satan.

At this point most Catholics say, besides their refrain that abortion is murder, that abortion and contraception, and a government that pushes both, suggest a wrong view of human sexuality which leads people into sin.

Aboriton is infanticide, not murder

Many Christians claim that God puts a soul in each  blastocyst, arguing a bit about whether or not the blastocyst has to implant first.  I view this mechanistic view of divinity as heretical: God, if He exists, can do what He wants to, when He wants to.  Moving beyound dualism, we can talk about the hyleomorphic human soul that exists when there is a human, raising the question of when exactly there is a human.

There have been a number of proposals to ban abortions except in the case of rape.  Why?  Because very few people are dogmatic enough to want to force a woman to mother a rapebaby, or to want rape to be a valid means of reproduction.  The sticking point on infanticide is whether it is a licit method of family planning.

Infanticide as a method of family planning exists in a number of other species.  Surely, we are humans, not animals, and we can use contraception instead of resorting to infanticide?  Surely, but where contraception is not used, or used improperly, infanticide is all that is left.  The Romans permitted infanticide up until one year, after which the father still had the right to kill his baby, but it would be recorded as killing.  Of course, we are not Romans.  Most ancient tribes would abandon deformed babies to die; today, many of these can live nominally productive lives.

Legality and morality?

Marijuana and amphetamines are performance-enhancing drugs in my field.  If they were legal, to choose not to use them would be to choose no to work in my field.  Same thing with steroids – not just for athletes, but also for construction workers.

Steroids lead to health problems later on in life, so one can at least argue that a man should not throw his health away for a few years of glory.  Marijuana and amphetamines do not appear to cause health problems, so, perhaps I am being an obstinate luddite when I refuse them.  Perhaps life would be better spent high all the time.  I am perfectly willing not to find out.

Obviously, a human life comes in stages.  There is childhood, puberty and the next few years, young adulthood, middle age, and years of wasting oldness.  White people are supposed to get married and have kids during young adulthood; more recently, it has become possible to have kids well into middle age.

The question we need to answer not whether people will be confused by the legality of infanticide and contraception and seduced by easily available pornography into believing that they can fuck around for their entire life and reproduce on demand when and if the time comes; that they can get married and divorced on a whim and that marriage is just a sterile life-partnership arrangement for tax and healthcare purposes – this confusion and seduction happens right now at a dangerously high rate.

The question is whether enough people are harmed by the legality of infanticide, contraception, and pornography, to be worth banning them from people who could use them responsibly.  This is a judgement call that can not be reduced to a question of natural law.

An individual can choose for himself whether or not to use pornography; a couple or a woman can choose contraception; a woman can choose an abortion.  Performance-enhancing drugs, once legalized, will be mandatory.

Thus I am more inclined to ban marijuana and amphetamines than infanticide.

 

Addendum
Perhaps some day, these dangerous things can be restricted to people who can use them responsibly, or, at least, people can be made fully aware of them.  I judge that there are too many lies flying around right now for the average person to be able to reliably come to the right conclusions.

I will add that infanticide should not be banned before contraception is, because that would mean more babies from women who don’t use contraception properly.

Advertisements

5 responses to “My Ambivalence about Abortion”

  1. nickbsteves says :

    As I said on twitter, I understand the ambivalence. We disagree only on the priors.

    Laying aside certain knowledge of when God imbues blastocysts with souls (which is know and cannot be known), we know that a blastocyst is a human being. It is a being: a unique and entire lifeform, not a “part ” of another (like a human “cell”, tho’ it may look like one). And of course, it is human (not Martian, not dog, not cucumber). So the traditional prohibition against unjust killing (i.e., murder) attaches. It has nothing to do with when or if God has “put” a “soul” in the being, but only to do with the irrefutable fact that this being is human. An age which lacked human embryology may be forgiven its excesses regarding the morality of contraception and abortion. But we have no such excuse today.

    I believe the verdict is quite clear that the confusion between the legality of abortion, contraception, and porn and its immorality is profoundly morbid if not fatal to modern peoples. Low and disgenic birth rates are really just the tip of the iceberg.

    • peppermint7889 says :

      I like the hyleomorphic concept because it’s the same whether or not there’s a God. That might not be the best reason, but, hyleomorphism is a venerable idea.

      We could say there’s a human at conception; the most radical joke perspective would be Bryce’s “life begins at conception” article on Social Matter the other day, or maybe the further joke that life begins when the kids move out and the dog dies; the most radical and still reasonable would be the age of reason, which might be as late as 26. People do say ‘just a kid’ and ‘never got to enjoy life’ about murders of people in their early 20s.

      I think people do treat infanticide differently from murder of an adult, though, more harshly, knowing that children are the future.

      It’s worth noting that the ancient Roman Republic had pretty barbaric infanticide practices, but they clearly had better than replacement fertility for a number of years. I wouldn’t want to go back to their infanticide law.

      Personally, I see nothing wrong with letting women abort rapist’s children, or abort to “reroll”; but using abortion and contraception to fuel the modern lifestyle is pretty clearly dysgenic, unless we’re going to be total genetic reductionists and claim that they’re voluntarily removing themselves from the gene pool.

      I guess I don’t need to be this edgy to stay totally in the mainstream, though.

    • peppermint7889 says :

      Anyway, perhaps a society with stronger churches or something could have greater legal tolerance for drugs, gambling, divorce, contraception and infanticide. But, that’s what happened across the last century.

      The question remains of whether the kind of “inverse legalism” that gets ingrained in people as democratic values is what caused the collapse of public morality as legal restrictions were relaxed, or, whether the lack of legal restrictions just does this to people under any form of government. I guess by now the experiment would be considered unethical.

      • R7 Rocket says :

        Families in the 19th Century were intact (3%-7% divorce rate), meanwhile, alcohol, heroin, opium, other drugs, and prostitution were legal at the time.

        Today, except for alcohol, many of these drugs and vices are now illegal, meanwhile, the US has a 50% divorce rate with a resulting marriage strike by a growing number of men.

        So what happened to public morality in the US?

        Women’s Rights happened.

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place - May 9, 2014

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: