Abortion is a vulgar and decadent development of a vulgar and decadent world. A Christian will not be able to support it uncritically.
However, we also live during a time where there are no checks at all on who is allowed to have sex with whom. Marriage is a joke; children are born out of wedlock nowadays at an alarming rate. Tinder programmers are allowed to live, instead of being burned at the stake.
Therefore, anti-abortion taken to the extreme must also require marriage again. But it won’t, and even if it did, who’d care? People love today’s vulgarity and sexual decadence, only extreme chaos might be able to get the West to return to our old, Christian morality.
If it does not, then this will result in a lot of dysgenic breeding. Either way, I find pro-life rhetoric disgusting because I hate my life and think that existence is something I would not have chosen. I am waiting to die, had felt like this since my late teenage years, more than a decade ago. I don’t see much point living in this world, even as a Christian. A penal colony it is indeed. See also Ecclesiastes 4:3.
Most who live have their crutches, as I wrote in another entry. Be it
women, sex, drugs, alcohol, work, getting degrees and certificates,
climbing the social status ladder, working out and trying to impress
others, even learning skills, languages, whatever.
Fine, but I have never done anything of the above, since I did not
understand why I would have to live at all. As a Christian you simply
have to suck it up.
If Aristotle wrote that the best rhetoric is grounded in truth—Vox Day mentions this often—then painting this life as a gift, or something so great and joyous etc. is a lie. Not all people feel this way, and this kind of rhetoric always left me cold at best, at worst I became scornful.
If one were honest, only pointing to God’s objective morality would be a legitimate reason against abortion; though atheists would not care, of course. But rhetoric like “you are denying that child life” etc. is useless since some people would have chosen rather not to exist.
Everyone is able to evaluate life only subjectively, by experiencing his
own existence. At best, one might be able to imagine that some people
are living lives that are, on the whole, awful; others less so.
Et cetera.
I certainly would have preferred not to be born. See also
Kierkegaard’s view on the matter.
Schopenhauer writes, in the second volume of The World as Will and Representation:
If now optimism were right, if our existence were to be thankfully recognised as the gift of the highest goodness guided by wisdom, and accordingly in itself praiseworthy, commendable, and agreeable, then certainly the act which perpetuates it would necessarily have borne quite another physiognomy.
Christopher Langan is not entirely anti-abortion either:
Would the existence of artificial wombs change the abortion debate?
Not really. Without a verifiable set of ethical principles covering this issue (and other abortion-related issues), such questions qualify as little more than baseless opinion magnets. A valid ethical system covering all aspects of abortion would have to be sociobiologically parameterized, and could not avoid the reasoned consideration of eugenics (“genetic hygiene”, in the socially and biologically rational sense of the concept). Unfortunately, this is diametrically opposed by “political correctness”.
What are your thoughts on Modern Women as a whole?
It’s a thugfest, and most women were long ago reduced to gangsta-molls for the thugs. Unwilling to accept their lot, and being useful idiots for the parasites wishing to divide and conquer, women decided to “fight back” by “reclaiming their bodies and reproductive rights”, i.e., by putting their own individual sexual and reproductive utility ahead of that of society (obviously not a bright or moral thing to do, but they were pushed, bless their little hearts). And then, in a herd-play so boneheaded that it would put a blush on a redbone hound, they all hopped aboard the neoliberal bandwagon and became a Certified Oppressed Group (TM), at which point they began to attack their only available scapegoats: White males. (Think about it – all other potential victims themselves belong to Certified Oppressed Groups (TM), so if you want to be a feminist/COG firebrand, it’s White males you need to crap on – not big important ones, because they can hurt you or do you a lot of good, and pretend to be on your side – but merely most of the worthwhile gene pool of your own kind along with “their” color, culture, and institutions.) See how that works? Just like a clock.
The typical modern woman couldn’t care less about the improvement of the human race – she breeds, or not, as she is conditioned or indoctrinated to do, often with one of the worst specimens she could have found, while better potential mates go begging. Unfortunately, the mainstream reproductive indoctrination fed to all of us these days is strictly dysgenic.
What are your thoughts on the dissolution of the nuclear family?
Yes, the planned dissolution of the nuclear family in order to put women into the workforce under the aegis of feminism was largely designed to displace men, who are far less threatening to the PTB when pushed down into the lowest strata of society and/or deprived of income. It was also designed for purposes of depopulation. Unfortunately, this depopulation strategy works only for groups which rely on employment, as opposed to those whose members typically have no interest in employment or for that matter sticking around to responsibly raise what would otherwise have qualified as families.
What are your thoughts on abortion?
I don’t like it one bit. But where abstinence and responsible contraception have both failed, and one has an empirical basis on which to infer that certain groups are incapable of responsible reproductive behavior, one must weigh the relative advantages of (early-term) abortion and total environmental destruction followed by societal collapse, a global population crash, and/or the total extinction of mankind. I should also note that this is an extremely complex problem which is metaphysically parameterized. Most of those shooting off their mouths about it do not understand it, or are forming their opinions on the basis of a very weak “metaphysical framework” based on some unsubstantiated body of religious doctrine (along with questionable semantic equivalencies like “abortion = murder”, etc.).
Abortion is wrong, but other things may be worse. In particular, outlawing abortion has the immediate effect of offloading reproductive responsibility – the responsibility of people to make sure that they can care for their own young before procreating and then do so as morally required – from reproductively incontinent (socially maladaptive) groups onto “society”, in particular the majority group which pays most of the freight. In all likelihood, abortion is one of the only reasons that Germany is not already “majority minority”, and thus in even worse shape than it is now. (Then again, Muslims aren’t exactly making use of it, are they. But it is very likely to have rationally constrained the growth of other German so-called “minorities” which are actually collectively irresponsible worldwide majorities.)
One area where pro-life viewpoints certainly are helpful is in highlighting the dishonest views of those who are pro abortion but anti suicide. It is intellectually sloppy. Where does it make sense to be in favor of allowing to end someone else’s life (whom you cannot consult), while being against legalisation of suicide, where adult men or women would decide to end their own?
As someone who has, almost against my will, become a Christian, I am against both, even though I would like to end my life now, of course.
Gómez Dávila, who saw more clearly on the issue of eugenics than, say, Chesterton or C. S. Lewis:
The longer nature delays in avenging the offenses committed against her, the crueler her vengeance.
Eugenics appals those who fear its judgment.
No beneficiary of slaves is supporter of birth control.
The individual who lies to himself, just like the society that does not lie to itself, soon rots and dies.
Depopulate and reforest – first civilizing rule.
Although it grieves the angelism of the democrat: one cannot build a civilisation with miserable biological material.
The two most pressing problems of the contemporary world: demographic expansion and genetic deterioration are unsolvable.
Liberal principles prevent the solution of the first, egalitarian ones that of the second.