Recently I’ve decided to actually start using Twitter. Randomly I stumbled upon two tweets – one was a group of harpies attacking a pregnant mother as she defended having a baby, and disavowed abortion, the other was a tweet celebrating “national day of appreciation for abortion providers” – as if that were a real thing!
The rest of this post is a distillation of the back and forth I had with a dozen women on twitter, along with my full researched position on the matter.
Here’s the original tweet:
To understand how crazy things have gotten I think it’s important to point out that according to mainstream society as a “man” I’m not supposed to even have an opinion. Although I once had this floating around my subconscious and therefore didn’t approach the subject, I have reassessed and think it’s actually extremely important for males to communicate their point of view on the matter – at the end of the day it does take two to tango.
My opinion on abortion is as follows: after much thinking abortion is absolutely one of the most insane, vile, and society damaging issues we face today, but as I point out later – it’s nested within the more complex issue of modern human sexuality. Most proponents know nothing about it’s legal origins, the history, practices and procedures and consequences of this practice and approach from a flawed and strictly ideological standpoint. On the other hand most conservatives fail to fully and completely articulate a counter point – always ending on strictly metaphysical concepts of good and evil, which most atheists will never be able to see through, or understand (in fact it hurts conservatives’ arguments leading to more division).
This position took me 35 years to develop. As a child of the 80’s growing up it wasn’t very mainstream (having still taken time for the ’73 Roe v. Wade Case to fully bury it’s hooks into society). I remember and know, a few young girls who at 15, 16, 17 got pregnant in high school and for whom abortion was unacceptable. I recently was chatting with one who told me it was very difficult, being that age and raising a baby, but it was worth it, and she wouldn’t have it any other way. Between her and her husband they have 5 children now.
Ironically, I must point out as an aside that my grandmothers and great grandmothers were mostly very young when they had children. My father’s mother for example, was only 16 when she got pregnant and 17 when he was born. They (my parental grandparents) went on to live wildly successful and adventurous lives. Things have certainly “changed.”
Let’s talk a little interesting history. For all of human history abortion has been looked down upon, but still done. Between poison, intentional “accidents”, and surgery – abortion has been around, but constrained to the darker outskirts of society and socially accepted norms. Roe V. Wade, changed all that. The 1973 supreme court case where Norma McCorvey, under the pseudonym Jane Roe, argued successfully with her lawyers securing, women’s “rights” to “legal” abortion. Couple interesting points here:
- It’s unconstitutional
- Norma McCorvey has said for 20+ years the whole thing was a mistake and she wishes it could be undone – now being “pro-life”
- The attorney on the case – one Gloria Allred
The problem with truly diving into the the constitutionality of issues would take an entire book. But, the constitution was setup as a fairly simple overarching body that governed the “United” States, with the States, ultimately being able to make up their own laws. It seems this major issue has been lost to history (the usurping of this idea in favor of “federal” above “state”). This was one of the major issues during the civil war, and was even an issue as recently as the 21-year-old drinking age and funding of the highway system. In more recent history – IE trump’s recent ban on tobacco related products – it seems the masses have been fully prepped after 250 years to accept a complete single government dictatorship. But that’s all for another post.
Here is Norma NOT ONLY advocating for the overturning of Roe V. Wade but also showing us a) she never had an abortion, b) gave her baby up for adoption, and c) showing that she had virtually nothing to do with the supreme court case.
I told the attorney handling the adoption case that she wanted to have an abortion… I didn’t attend any of the court hearings or anything like that.
I think the fact that she admits she had no involvement in the Supreme Court case is very telling and leads me into my next point – Gloria Allred.
This is where we start to go into a bit of a critical thinking direction. Why would Gloria Allred’s firm, take up a case for someone that clearly wasn’t going through with an abortion, and didn’t, but spin it into a women’s rights issue? If you look at the cases
Abortion Statistics – A Hundred Year Perspective
Abortions were virtually non-existent on any meaningful scale throughout the first half of the 20th century, but there was a sharp and sudden uptick in the 70s. The largest percent increase I could find was from 1969 – 1970, where abortions totaled 27,512 accounting for 0.7% of births. The next year 1970 – it skyrockets to
193,491 abortions or an increase of 700% totaling 5.2% of births. What caused the change? At first glance thinking women’s liberation movement and feminist movement which started between 1963 and 1968 – with “first wave feminism” being coined in 1968.
As of 2019, we see approximately 850,000 abortions with 3.8 mil total births, or roughly 22% of all births. According to the Guttmacher Institute as of 2019 – Eighteen percent of pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) in 2017 ended in abortion.
Abortion Statistics – Reasons Given
Another argument I came up against (this one in a different thread) was about convenience. My main critic (who was attacking a pregnant mother to be) asked that mother-to-be to provide stats/information on when women have abortions for “inconvenience” as she (the mother) had used that word in one of her replies. To my shock the woman recanted, apologized for the misuse of language. That’s when I swooped in and provided the following:
… reasons for seeking abortion included financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%). Most women reported multiple reasons for seeking an abortion crossing over several themes (64%).Understanding Women Who Seek Abortions in the U.S.
Those are clearly not the kinds of statistics proponents of abortion want to hear. Although the paper is particularly vague in it’s conclusions on which answers were given, as a whole it’s clear that a significant percentage are inconveniences. There are no rapes or medical emergencies listed, only lifestyle issues.
Other interesting stats:
- At 2014 abortion rates, about one in four (24%) women will have an abortion by age 45.4
- More than half of all U.S. abortion patients in 2014 were in their 20s: Patients aged 20–24 obtained 34% of all abortions, and patients aged 25–29 obtained 27%.5 – So most are old enough to know better, use protection and other prophylactics.
- Adolescents made up 12% of abortion patients in 2014: Those aged 18–19 accounted for 8% of all abortions, 15–17-year-olds for 3% and those younger than 15 for 0.2%.5
- White patients accounted for 39% of abortion procedures in 2014, black patients for 28%, Hispanic patients for 25%, and patients of other races and ethnicities for 9%.5 – When normalized for population, blacks are having most of the abortions (as a percentage of community).
- Seventeen percent of abortion patients in 2014 identified themselves as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant and 24% as Catholic, while 38% reported no religious affiliation and the remaining 8% reported some other affiliation.5 – The highest numbers are found with no religious upbringing which is interesting.
- Fifty-nine percent of abortions in 2014 were obtained by patients who had had at least one birth.5 – Many already have another child and don’t want to add an additional child to their household.
- Some 75% of abortion patients in 2014 were poor (having an income below the federal poverty level of $15,730 for a family of two in 2014) or low-income (having an income of 100–199% of the federal poverty level).5 – This means 75% of patients make less than $25,000/year.
- In 2014, 16% of patients who obtained abortions in the United States were born outside the United States, a proportion comparable to their representation in the U.S. population (17% of women aged 15–44).5 – This is a staggering number. So roughly 128,000 abortions are performed each year for foreign born patients.
- In 2014, 51% of abortion patients were using a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant, most commonly condoms (24%) or a short-acting hormonal method (13%).6 – This is hard to decode, even after reading the actual paper: unclear if they’re using single methods or combination of methods, but since all are accounted for, it would seem the vast plurality of abortion receivers USE NO PROTECTION.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s Comments
I hate lies, and they dot this issue like cancer. Snopes would have you believe what I’m about to write is not true. But it is indeed true.
“Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding of abortion.”The New York Times
Just in case they decide to edit that link, here’s a PDF of the article. The implications are pretty clear, there was some sub population they wanted to limit breeding too. Now whether that was blacks (as they make up the largest population affected by abortion) or some other demographics (read poor people) is up to interpretation. Didn’t they just make a movie about this woman?
The Insane Jaffe Memo
Similar to Ruth’s comments, you might be surprised to learn about the Jaffe Memo – written in 1969 by planned parenthood’s vice president Frederick Jaffe for the Population Council.
There’s that date again. Any wonder the rhetoric and culture immediately changed in the 70s? Read this list “Examples of Proposed measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility”:
- Restructure Family (alter image of ideal family, postpone or avoid family)
- Compulsory Eduction of Children
- ENCOURAGE HOMOSEXUALITY – Still think they’re FIGHTING FOR ANYONE’S RIGHTS?
- Fertility Control Agents in Water Supply (and they call people who do research “nuts”)
- Encourage Women to Work – Most women now sadly defend this as if it wasn’t a part of a larger destruction agenda. But like that old saying goes – it’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
From what I can gather the Population Council is a sub division NGO (non governmental organization) of the U.N. From their own documents they receive funding from a number of interesting sources:
- Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
- Elton John
- Goldman Sachs
- Both Hewlett & Packard Foundations
- UNICEF (U.N.)
- UNESCO (there’s the U.N. directly)
- World Bank
- Department of State
When I was about 11 we would get those UNICEF boxes at school, winning prizes if we were able to get them filled. My community was littered with kids all competing for their neighbors’ parents’ change. I was only able to fill mine half way. But, one Saturday morning there was a knock on the door. Our next-door neighbors (2 pretty little girls) and their mother. Their mother said, “excuse us, but my little girls have something to say.”
“We’re sorry we took your money, and rather than turned it in, used it to buy candy.” They were mortified, and I’m sure it was a major life lesson, but in reflection, perhaps it was me that should have been scolded.
The snake eats it’s own fucking tail again.
If you’re curious about the whole list you can view their annual report where they provide details on all of their donors on page 18.
Let’s start with the positive shall we:
The book Freakanomics made an excellent point, and when pro-deathers find their arguments are falling apart this is sometimes perspective of last resort, the rise of abortions closely matches the decrease in violent crimes during the latter part of the 20th century. The implications are clear, abortion prevented those babies that were going to have a rough life and be criminals anyway from being form and becoming blights on society. I actually think as we move through this more it’s a very “racist” concept, but that doesn’t stop me from presenting (and I do use that term very carefully). Ultimately, even if this was proven true (which it can not – as we can’t know what people would have done that were not born), it’s still not a justification for killing babies. The problems of this world should be solved by the people in this world, and not by slaughtering those that have yet to participate in it in any way what so ever.
There are also a number of eugenic origins of abortion – https://www.catholicstand.com/eugenics-in-america/
Abortion: An Unlikely Perspective
Before we get to the arguments I think it’s helpful to present an alternative perspective on everything we’ve discussed so far. The question that is going through my mind is why? There seems to be a concerted effort on the part of the ruling class to push the wholesale murder of our unborn children on society and the question has to be – why? I certainly don’t have all the answers, or the final why, but I think you can sum this up with 2 major categories:
- Industry (Experimentation, Cosmetics, Vaccines, etc.)
“a researcher paid a middleman procurement company $3,340 for a fetal brain, $595 for a “baby skull matched to upper and lower limbs,” and $890 for “upper and lower limbs with hands and feet.”The Daily Signal
Based on this and other articles it appears the average price for a fetus to be approximately $5000. With abortions at over 860,000/year that’s huge dollars – over $3 billion/year.
Obviously when you have those kinds of numbers involved you often see some strange monetary compensation systems setup to keep the blood (err… money) flowing.
Similar to the above the question becomes, what are these body parts used for? And the answer is quite surprising. From vaccines to the latest face creams, to (I’m sure) all kinds of experiments the public isn’t privied to, these parts are used in all kinds of strange ways.
The link on vaccine use has an interesting timeline on major dates in the fetal tissue use movement. Interestingly it seems, fetal tissue was almost immediately used for experimentation but an amendment in congress:
ban(ned) research on a fetus outside the uterus, if that fetus had a beating heart. In addition, hearings were held by Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts regarding the protection of human subjects in research. These hearings were in part fueled by controversy about reports of fetal research being done in Sweden.
Two steps forward, one step back. And now, nearly 40 years later a majority of the population has been injected with fetal tissue cells (as a part of vaccines) and is even using baby foreskin to smooth out the wrinkly divots of Sandra Bullocks face. And make no mistake throngs of young women are following suit, naive, ignorant, or completely brainwashed to believe… “this is good.“
Abortion Apologists Arguments
As I understand the debate on abortion boils down to the following points (on the “pro-death” side):
- It’s not a person so it’s not murder
- My body, my choice
- Abortion is women’s healthcare
- Pregnancy is harmful & painful
- It’s done to protect the mother or for very serious cases (including rape that leads to pregnancy)
- When all else fails (if arguing with a man) say they don’t have a uterus and have no say.
1) It’s Not a Person
On the surface this seems to make sense, and is even considered somewhat acceptable in both the pro-life, and pro-death camps, but it gets tricky – at least up until the baby starts to produce it’s own heart beat. One aspect of word magick abortionists and their supporters are now using is ZEF (Zygote, Embryo, Fetus) a nice euphemism for the underlying life being created. It’s a helpful distancing tool to remove one’s conscience from having to make a moral decision – thanks medical establishment wizards. When repeatedly prodded on the issue, the one woman I was arguing with said “it’s a clump of cells, and even up until the time it’s born it’s not a “person,” it can’t live on it’s own can it?” She also added at multiple points:
By this logic, a child could be aborted as it is an undeveloped human, or a young adult is an undeveloped senior. In some ways I wonder if this is actually a struggle with language itself, and a great example of how it can be massaged and manipulated to move ones underlying morals. If the scientific and textbook definition of ‘person’ wasn’t merely a human being regarded as an individual, but also set a time parameter ‘beginning at conception, or first cell division after a sperm had fertilized an egg.’ A bit wordy, but would help to prevent future euphemisms to be used against women in shaping their morals. Whether pro or con, you can’t help but notice that “pro life” and “pro choice” are quite interesting (it was actually the first time I realized that words have deeper meanings – with the implication that someone was “pro life” a clear allusion that the alternative was “pro death” and was dastardly) – at the time I held different views about abortion.
Reminds me of the George Carlin set on euphemisms:
So what’s my argument? I think this is both the toughest to communicate, but easiest item to refute. You actually don’t have to look at definitions at all. Did you make the baby? Did you willingly have sex? You must not kill something living and growing inside you who will later become a more “full” thing.
It’s only from this point that the rest of reality falls into place – the importance of adulthood, the importance of maturity, the importance of sex (it is a MOST meaningful act that should only be shared with someone you really know and care for). I’ll go into details later to circle this one back up.
2) My Body My Choice
This is not only a pathological and circular argument, it’s also very anti-women. I can do what I want with my body regardless of what it means is consistently argued by feminists and pro abortionists. The main issue here is that once a baby begins growing, it’s no longer your body. If these women were intellectually honest they would just admit (which none do) they don’t want a baby, they don’t want to get fat, they don’t want to be inconvenienced with all the trappings of pregnancy, birth, and motherhood. So they choose to terminate the living being inside of themselves. Case closed.
But instead they make they’ve become convinced this is some kind of women’s rights issue. They have the god given right to remove their baby. Why? Because it’s their body.
But isn’t there another body growing inside you? “Still my body growing it. Still my choice to remove the cancer.” Didn’t you make it with someone else? Shouldn’t they have a say as it’s part of them as well? “No.” From what authority do you derive the right to terminate something that you made with someone else that is living? “It’s my body.” I’m not trying to force abortion on these women, just the idea that perhaps it’s ethically equivalent to murder to remove an unborn baby…
So why is equating abortion with healthcare anti-women? Well, and I’ll dive into this in more detail on the health/safety issues specifically, but there are physical long-term consequences to not having children (IE, the hormonal changes your body goes through during pregnancy and birth aren’t just inconveniences, they’re actually needed for the long-term health of the woman).
Additionally, if women have one “right of passage” it is that of motherhood. Men have, historically, had to invent a societal tool to help in the mental, physical and societal roles of boys transitioning into men. Women on the other hand have this built in – and it’s pregnancy and motherhood.
Finally, I believe there is a huge argument to make that women with children are far more balanced mentally and emotionally than women without children (remember those old victorian era tales about the crazy unwed auntie?) and it leads to a deeper more fulfilling life.
Finally, there is nothing quite like having a child, and initiating that maternal instinct (and guiding it naturally – into one’s kids) that that power is harnessed in a powerful, meaningful, and long-term direction – because, simply, you’re worried about your children and your children’s children. When this is removed, that passion is decoupled and channeled (I believe) in all kinds of nefarious directions.
3) Abortion is Healthcare?
Honestly, I can’t grasp what kind of mental gymnastics it takes to claim abortion is women’s healthcare. When someone prodded the woman who was arguing this, this was her explanation:
So it’s justified even if at the moment of abortion there is no threat to the woman? That doesn’t make sense I suppose in the very unlikely chance a woman is pregnant and something goes terribly wrong, it makes sense that it would be provided as such – as healthcare. But, that is not what is being argued by abortion apologists.
Here a phantom straw man is being setup (a woman’s future health issues, presented as “lifelong damage”). I’ve known a few women with some scars, but never any lifelong damages.
I did some studying on the issue and it does seem a small percentage of women are exposed to some risks, however they seem to be mostly non-fatal, not long term, and in the cases of things like diabetes caused by other factors entirely (and blaming this on pregnancy is asinine).
In fact, as I’ll argue below – it’s actually unhealthy not to have babies, and healthy TO HAVE BABIES.
4) Pregnancy is Painful
5) It’s For Mothers Protection or Extenuating Circumstances
This one is so easy to refute it shouldn’t be an issue. We could erase all needless abortion tomorrow and enact legislation that – at the approval of both the creators of the baby – a couple could choose to terminate a pregnancy with the approval of a family doctor who provided evidence that the pregnancy would be fatal. We could start there as a place of moral common ground. I’ll come back to this one.
Rape – I think this is a red herring, and stumbled upon some anomalies while doing the research. According to this NY Daily News article there were some 135,000 cases in 2017. Other sources show the number to be as high as 18 million and others (like the department of justice) list conviction rates of rapes as small. Even weirder, when you look up rape kit statistics (the kits used to determine if rape occurred) the stats are very very tiny. Let’s take the 135,000 national statistics for arguments sake:
According to this study Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women 5% of rapes result in pregnancy end up in pregnancy. Of those, approximately 50% aborted the baby. That means of more than 860,000 abortions – 3,375 can be attributed to rape. That is 0.4%. Meaning 99.6% of abortions are for other reasons (not rape). This is clearly not a real argument based on the numbers alone.
As for having an abortion related to health issues, I can’t find any meaningful information on this – even in multiple studies showing in depth interviews with women receiving abortions. From this I can only conclude this is a straw-man, a virtual non-issue.
6) Men Don’t Have a Say
This one I have encountered a number of times when trying to reason with women advocating killing babies. I’m told to shut up because I’m a man and I don’t have a say. As I stated at the beginning of this article, that’s nonsense and I absolutely have a say. I have a say because it’s my god-given right, I have a say because it takes two to tango, and I have a say because half of that baby’s makeup is mine, is literally me.
To keep this post a tad bit shorter, I’m going to go through my own perspective pretty quickly:
- A lack of history/context – The feminist and sexual revolution movements were engineered lies, fundamentally changing basics of humanity that have lasted for untold thousands of years. Not knowing even the past 50 years of history and context which frames this movement is ignorance at it’s finest. A true and honest study of such subjects must, invariably lead one to question this idea.
- The Weaponization of “Choice & Freedom” – Our own vices are being used against us. As Augustine of Hippo stated – “A man has as many masters as he has vices.” The current trend of venerating vices as rights, is a clear perversion of reality and people (particularly women) are buying it hook line and sinker (or perhaps more appropriately – they’re selling their babies to major industry for pennies on the dollar!).
- It’s a Market – In what world is this okay? The same people that condemn capitalism, seem to be cheerleading this as a right, while being ignorant of the use of the baby’s body after it’s removal.
- Both Parties Have a Say – My seed my choice. See Above.
- It’s a primary form of birth control – As I’ve proven here, and has been referenced in many other studies, the vast, vast majority of pregnancies are terminated solely for inconvenience issues. There is no true moral struggle or respect for life and the adoration of motherhood.
- Normalization of Degeneracy – Abortion as birthcontrol (which it primarily is) is a powerful tool to increase degeneracy, the collapse of morals and virtues, and turn all of humanity into sniveling children.
- Morally & Ethically “Wrong” – It’s a baby, and it’s literally YOU! You’re killing your children. Whether you want to construct a bunch of walls of denial to keep that conscience at bay, you can still hear it’s screams just beyond your lies.
- Removes the Consequences from Sex – This is tied into multiple arguments, but removing the consequences from sex has led to the commodification of sex, to the fetishizing of sex – on a scale, and to a degree that we’ve never seen before. These consequences spiral out like a chaotic funnel wiping out like common parental relationships, happiness, long-term health for both sexes, mortality rates, ability to connect and bond, etc. etc.
- Can be very problematic for women – There are a number of studies highlighting this. Here’s one article for example. Long term women who have children live longer, more fulfilling lives. It seems to be a consequence of hormonal (and perhaps behavioral) changes that occur during and after birth. In addition to the health consequences, women who don’t have children seem to live much less fulfilling lives (from my anecdotal experience) they seem to lie to themselves and endeavor in the domain of men, or worse, become hyper promiscuous even at older ages.
There are clearly real long term consequences (we’ve seen more changes in 50 years since 1970 than almost in the whole of human history). That’s obviously not entirely due to abortion, but the one can’t deny the massive role the sexual revolution & feminism has played in shaping the world we find ourselves today – which at it’s core was centered around a few tenents, one of which was abortion – the decoupling of women’s sexuality from having children.
This has happened before and it didn’t end well…