The world is short two very intelligent White people around thirty years of age as a result, for both she and her mate were bright and talented. Sadly, this woman was never able to carry a pregnancy to term after the two abortions, despite her mate finally wanting children.

I am no fan of feminism; but as far as abortion goes there are two people involved, and whichever one wishes to avoid responsibility bears the greater shame.

And yes, Margaret Sanger, I am sure, suffers from deep despondency at her station in Hell.

God bless,
Laurel

Just a few comments. I’m afraid I have to disagree in some instances here, but I do so amicably and with a spirit of sensitivity, a willingness to be corrected by brothers with better insight, and total submission to whatever truth can be demonstrated by evidence and from the Word of God, and clear inference.

It is undeniable that there are two in many abortion equations, but just as often there’s only one, the woman, who decides the man doesn’t need to know, would react badly, or whatever else you may imagine. Sometimes pregnancy is used as a means of driving away what is known to be an immature man because a woman wants to have babies but no man to keep her chained to the the playpen and cookstove. It is impossible to generalize on a gender basis.

I have not laid anything at the feet of women as a gender, but at the feet of feminism, which in its modern manifestation is as much of a creature of male advocacy as female. In fact, I have reason to believe that it was intentionally nurtured by certain powerful males for reasons which may be obvious to some. It appears to me that your comment conflates feminism with women, which was neither stated nor implied. There may be some instances of abortions being “forced” by men, but just as many if not more are certainly of the convenience variety to preserve the independence of the woman.

It is quite easy to state, after the fact, that “Oh, I wanted that baby.” It makes the decision to abort seem to weigh less upon the woman. However, is that really a valid excuse? I think not. I would think that a woman who is decidedly against abortion is not going to have one under any circumstances, and the male’s behavior will have no effect on that. Also, if she really believes that, she will be willing to suffer some degree of harassment or cajoling in order to preserve a life, no? I don’t agree that men have this unholy power over women to force them into unwanted abortions to the extent that your comment appears to suppose. I think that it is often merely a convenient excuse to deflect blame for something they know is a selfish and horrible decision. I’m not arguing for a proliferation of single moms, but I’d rather have a million White single moms with White babies than a far fewer White babies because they didn’t fit the mold of the “perfect family” or the father was a “rogue”. We have laws for that. Deadbeat dads can be made to pay.

I agree that many of the world’s problems are directly related to men abandoning their duty as fathers and husbands. But forced abortions to be is a bit of a bogeyman. That said, one of men’s duties was to prevent the spread of the ideological disease of feminism, women’s suffrage, and other related ills. There was a discussion on the forum about how women’s suffrage got started in the South as a means of doubling the available votes to prevent black rule. That is like slaughtering your draft horse for food. It is a lose-lose decision and is a result of some dire circumstances in which compromises have to be made. Such was the plight of the South at the time.

But so much of what’s wrong with both women and men and the culture at large can be laid to the charge of feminism -and we can discuss this history at length if it seems appropriate- that it is hardly fair to blame “men”, which seems to me like a feminist stance itself, and one of the excuses women use to justify their actions. As often as not today, and I have studied this phenomenon extensively, the white male does not even know of the pregnancy, because the woman has no intention of keeping it regardless of whether the man is a Prince or not. The old ethos of trying to get a man and keep a man does not hold anymore. Women, as often as not, aren’t in the least concerned with finding a husband. Oh, having babies is eventually a priority to be sure, but only if they can “have it all”. Pet children and outsourced care giving is the result. Serial promiscuity is the new form of monogamy, and it is so common as to be unexceptionable.

Insofar as the discussion touches upon the menfolk of the “guest” peoples, it is most often the case that they care nothing for the forcing of an abortion decision, since the women are intent to keep the children, because they have powerful incentives to do so. Further, it is no matter of conscience for a Negro male, and often neither for an “Hispanic” one, that he has several bastard children. This is becoming far more common for Whites, as their mores become corrupted by those of the parasitic peoples. It was fairly common of white noblemen in olden times, and it is to our shame. However, under most circumstances the bastards were at least materially provided for, which is not the case among the other races who form the bulk of our “guest” peoples. The common white folk of yore did not largely behave in the ways the nobles did. They were awed by religion, constrained by morality, and of inadequate substance to provide for bastards -and poor women did not want another mouth to feed. Bastardy is simply a way of life in other cultures, and in Africa today it is simply unexceptionable. I have never argued the moral superiority of Whites, only their technical and intellectual superiority, but rather have focused on the complete and utter incompatibility of the races - a fact which is bred in the bone in the rural South, as accepted by both races as the assertion that the sky is blue.

What is also historically undeniable is that feminism has done more to advance the availability and acceptance of abortion as an “alternative” than any other social force. What is also undeniable is that feminism is guilty of playing a decisive role in the undermining of masculinity, the emasculation of men, and thus is also partly to blame for the very impulse to “flight” that men experience when pregnancy arises.

Blessings, John.

I have no argument with your points; as always, you make excellent ones. Nor is my point about men being involved in the decision a feminist one, at least not by my intention. My contact with women who’ve had abortions has been limited to this one woman, a friend from my college days, so perhaps that sullies my thought process. One should have a larger research sample, of course.

My position on abortion is that it is always murder and always contrary to the Word of God.

I would be interested in the development of your points on the history of feminism. Growing up in the time I did may mean I do not really understand what influence feminism has had on my own attitudes.

Perhaps that should be a new post rather than a comment thread?

God bless,
Laurel

Yes, abortion is always murder, and I certainly hope that any nuances in my post or comments did not convey that I think otherwise.

Let me make my original point as succinctly as I can to try to clear up any confusion:

Utilitarians have been historically tied to Malthusian “population control” support. They have argued that the world is overpopulated and that as a matter of the “greatest good” for the population at large, abortion is to be supported, if nothing else, as a means of population control.

People don’t really call them Utilitarians any more, they call them liberal technocrats, or just liberals. But they are the ideological children of a confluence between the thought of Rousseau, J.S. Mill, and John Dewey. Utilitarianism later became Pragmatism, which was championed by Dewey, William James, Charles Pierce, and the intellectual heirs of those men.

There are those in the White rights movement who are feminists. They deny the historical role of women given to us in the Bible as interpreted by the churches of the West, and look to a pre-Christian pagan paradigm for the role of women in society. They tend also to be supporters of abortion and feminism in general, though it is completely counterproductive to their stated aims. These are your Odinists and what have you, who think of males as roguish warrior types who come and go freely into women’s chambers, leaving bastards behind them. It is a very low view of men, IMO.

Now, my point was that Sanger was a rare bird, in that she was a feminist and a white supremacist and supporter of racial hygiene. She was also at the same time a liberal of the pragmatist stamp that I have just described. The irony I was describing was that she had hoped that this tool of feminism (abortion) would be just the thing to cleanse the U.S. of the parasite peoples, since it was her contention that white women would not abort their babies in such large numbers, but only those that were “defective”. Thus she hoped that the White race would be improved and the other races would be eliminated. Her intuitions turned out to be wholly incorrect, for it is white women who, according to statistics, are having the vast majority of abortions. Why? Because modern society, largely the result of the dominance of feminism and allied philosophies among the elite, has created a disincentive for White women to keep their babies, and an incentive for women of other races to keep their babies.

This incentive variability is “dyseugenic” with respect to Whites, and thus her feminism actually worked to defeat her racial eugenics goals. As for the standard Utilitarians/Liberals, their support for feminism and abortion for reasons unrelated to race is similarly paradoxical. These are the very people who support the rights of the guest peoples over and above those of the host. But the very success of these parasitic peoples is imperiled by the feminism/abortion they support, since the host who is providing the substance off of which the parasites live is committing “suicide by feminism” through the tool of abortion.

That was my original point.

Interesting about the pre-Christian, pagan paradigm some folks in the White rights movement profess. I wonder how they think they know that this was the paradigm? As a person of Scandinavian descent myself, my readings have indicated that, while wives in the pre-Christian era had perhaps more autonomy while hubby was away a-Viking, they were still wives and not women who dispensed their favors on whichever warrior came their way. The Valkyrie reward for valor on the battlefield was an after-death thing. (Praise God my ancestors converted to Christianity!)

Thanks for clarifying the discentives for White women to keep their babies vs. the incentives for people of the guest populations to keep theirs. I somehow missed this in the first post. It makes a world of difference in understanding.

You are completely right about the idea of the parasite killing the host. I live where I can see that kind of mechanism in action, unfortunately.