UPDATE: I’ve come across some new information.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, the abortion breakdown by race in 2008 was as follows: 36.1 percent Non-Hispanic White, 29.6 percent Black, 9.4 percent Other, and 24.9 percent Hispanic. In other words, more White women than Black women are getting abortions.
That’s not the most interesting thing though. In terms of education, the breakdown is as follows: 12.3 percent less than a high school education, 28.3 percent high school graduates, 39.5 percent some college, and 19.9 percent college graduate. Over half of women in the United States who get abortions either have a college education or have been to college.
Here is my response to “The Pro-Life Temptation” which was posted at Radix Journal this afternoon:
“I understand the pro-life temptation. The kinds of people who support abortion access most fervently are those who stand for the things we oppose: selfishness, atomization, the “liberation” of women, and leftist identity politics. In popular culture, legalized abortion is tied to “reproductive freedom,” which has liberated women from the horrible fate of being wives and mothers and allowed them to pursue more meaningful lives as cubicle drones.”
What is the “pro-choice movement”?
It is liberalism applied to the family: the freedom of a rights-bearing individualist to divorce your spouse, the freedom to discard your offspring for being inconvenient to your chosen lifestyle, the freedom of liberated women to go to college in their peak years of fertility, the freedom to engage in miscegenation and fornication, the freedom to dedicate your life to pursuing a career and material rewards without suffering the shame of social stigma, the freedom to engage in a homosexual relationship, etc.
None of these things, which were strongly taboo until a few decades ago, are conducive to racial flourishing. We shouldn’t be surprised that they are all strongly associated with racial and cultural degeneration. Previous generations thought the price paid by society was too high for that much individual freedom.
“First off, the alt Right appreciates what is superior in man, in the Nietzschean sense. Most members of the alt Right applaud countries like Japan and South Korea for having low out-of-wedlock birth rates and not taking in Muslim or African refugees. We don’t simply say “who cares what they do, they’re not my tribe.” Rather, we recognize that such people have built impressive civilizations, and we believe that it is in the interest of humanity that these nations continue to exist, and not adopt the suicidal policies of the West.”
Seriously, what parent actually thinks in these terms?
Aside from rare cases of detectable genetic diseases, who observes their unborn or newborn child, ponders whether it is going to be “superior” or “inferior,” and then decides whether or not it should live? I will hazard a guess: most likely a childless eugenicist of which there are far too many on the internet.
BTW, Nietszche died childless from syphillis in an insane asylum, so he is hardly any guide to the family.
“Second, we on the alt Right have an appreciation of tribalism and identity. We realize that people are not just autonomous individuals. Life gains its meaning through connections to other members of our families, tribes, and nations.
Being pro-life flies in the face both of these principles.”
Speaking for myself alone here, I care about the welfare of my descendants, and there is nothing that flies in the face of that more than abortion. If you are willing to kill your own genetic offspring, why would you care about the fate or welfare of more distantly related strangers? Can we reasonably expect a culture that sanctions killing off its own posterity to be anything other than indifferent to its own long term survival?
“First of all, the pro-life position is clearly dysgenic. A 2011 study showed that in 2008, while 16 percent of women aged 15-44 lived below the poverty line, among women who had abortions, the number was 42 percent. Hispanic and African-American women made up a combined 31 percent of this age group, but almost 55 percent of those who chose to terminate a pregnancy. The reasons behind these patterns aren’t hard to figure out. In a world with reliable birth control, it is quite easy to avoid an unwanted pregnancy; the only ones who can’t are the least intelligent and responsible members of society: women who are disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and poor.”
In 2012, White women accounted for 51 percent of abortions and non-White women the other 49 percent of abortions. So, for every non-White abortion, there was a corresponding White abortion; nationwide, it is a net racial wash.
“A natural experiment in Colorado shows what happens when a state makes contraception and abortion more freely available. Over the last decade, the state has moved to the Left, and in 2009 it began offering free or low-cost long-acting contraception to poorer women. The state provided intrauterine devices and implants that, unlike condoms or the pill, did not require that the user be responsible enough to plan ahead. Within a few years, the birth rate of low-income women plummeted. In states where Republican legislatures have enacted a pro-life agenda, the opposite has happened.”
FYI in 2012, White women accounted for 67 percent of abortions in Colorado.
“A study in Europe found that over 90 percent of mothers who were told that their babies were going to have Down’s syndrome did not continue the pregnancy. In 2011, it was estimated that there are now 30 percent fewer people with the disorder in the United States due to prenatal diagnosis. In the future, as such technologies improve, what the Left calls “reproductive freedom” will continue to be the justification for private-sector eugenics.”
This is ridiculous for two reasons:
1. First, only 1 out of every 691 babies born in the United States have Downs’ Syndrome, or about 5,000 a year. There are about 3,000 Downs’ Syndrome related abortions per year. That’s out of 699,202 abortions in 2012. In other words, DS accounts for less than 0.4% of abortions.
2. Second, the dysgenic threat posed by Downs’ Syndrome fecundity is … LOL.
“The idea that there are capable women out there who are aborting their babies as they delay marriage and climb the corporate ladder is a fantasy. When an intelligent, responsible woman does have an abortion, it is often because the baby has a disease or the pregnancy threatens her health, not because she or her boyfriend forget to use contraception.”
Except for the fact that this isn’t true:
“Poor women not trying to conceive are also three times more likely to get pregnant than their higher income counterparts (9 percent compared to 3 percent), and ultimately at 5 times more likely to give birth. In addition, abortion rates among the poor are lower, with 32 percent in the highest income bracket having an abortion compared to 9 percent of low-income terminations.
Among women who are not trying to conceive, 32 percent of pregnancies to affluent women end in abortion compared to only 9 percent of those to lower income women.
“Not only is the pro-life movement dysgenic, but its justifications rely on principles we generally reject.
Principles like … I don’t know, orienting our politics around leaving behind a better world for our own biological posterity, as opposed to abstract universal principles like “freedom.”
The alt Right is skeptical, to say the least, of concepts like “equality” and “human rights,” especially as bases for policy. The unborn fetus has no connection to anyone else in the community. If it is not even wanted by its own mother, criminalizing abortion means that the state must step in and say that the individual has rights as an individual, despite its lack of connection to any larger social group. This is no problem to those in the conservative movement, who decide right and wrong based on principles like “the right to life.”
For the record, outlawing abortion means that there isn’t an “individual right” or “freedom” of a woman to abort her own offspring, which in this case entails a rejection of liberalism. It also means asserting a state interest in protecting the welfare of unborn posterity.
It is no coincidence that some of the most pro-life politicians are those most excited about adopting children from Africa and those in their movement are among the conservatives most likely to denounce the “racism” of their political opponents.
This tells us nothing: abortion was illegal in the Jim Crow South, and the bizarre antics of modern evangelicals are hardly reflective of their predecessors just two or three generations ago.
“The mother-child bond is the strongest of human relationships, the one least subject to being altered by government policy or societal forces. While over the last decades, fathers have become more likely to walk out on their children and divorce rates have risen, there has been no similar rise in females abandoning their children.
There have been more sweeping changes in gender relations and the “mother-child bond” due to the Sexual Revolution over the last half century in this country – the most obvious being the 700,000 or so abortions a year – than there were in the previous 2,000 years of European history.
“When the parent-child bond does not exist for a pregnant woman, society has no business stepping in. Those who want to do so, by banning abortion because it’s “racist” or adopting children from Africa, are the ultimate cuckservatives.”
If there was ever a Trojan Horse, it is the “pro-choice movement.” A culture that believes in the right to abort its own offspring as a matter of principle, as a “choice,” will be apathetic or indifferent to its own racial survival, culturally degenerate, and likely aging and dying out. The last thing we need is to achieve an “ethnostate” like Japan only to throw it away by losing the will to perpetuate our own race like the Japanese.
“If there were to be a pro-life position that we could accept, it would be based on arguments about what is good for the community. The case would have to be made that abortion is what is decimating the White population and decreasing its quality.”
Abortion isn’t decimating the White population.
As we have seen, abortion is a net racial wash in the United States. For every non-White child that is aborted, a White child is also aborted. What is really decimating the White population is the principle behind the “pro-choice movement”: the notion that society is composed of rights-bearing individualists motivated by self-expression and fulfillment, each pursuing his or her own definition of the good, with no duty or obligation to any greater whole than satisfying their basest impulses.
DINKs celebrating the “childfree life” with their little dogs, fornication and family planning made possible by birth control, women pursuing careers and higher education in their twenties, rank materialism, rampant homosexuality and miscegenation, etc. That is having a much greater effect on overall White numbers than the number of White pregnancies which end in abortion.
“Yet the pro-life agenda would give us the worst of all worlds.
What could be worse than not having the freedom to abort your own child?
“Those whom we want to have children would continue to find a way to do what they wanted, while the birth rates among the worst members of society would explode. Childbearing among better classes would probably decrease even further under the strain of the inevitable increases in crime and redistributive policies that would follow.”
The better classes are already more likely to end an unwanted pregnancy in abortion than the lower classes. Childbearing among the better classes has been cut in half and sent into deeply negative territory in Europe mainly as a result of birth control and the erosion of sexual taboos.
“A better way is to make an honest case that feminism has been bad for women. There is no higher calling in life than continuing the species, and raising happy, healthy children who will be a benefit to society.”
The “pro-choice movement” is saying exactly the opposite of this: young women should have the “individual right” to kill their own offspring to pursue more worthwhile ends in life than giving birth to a child.
“Perhaps nothing is more important than advocating for a return to more natural relations between the sexes. But that does not mean we mindlessly oppose everything that the Left supports.”
Are there any real world examples of racially and culturally flourishing societies that have embraced the pro-choice movement?
“In reality, its positions lead to dysgenics and are justified through appeals to the same universalist principles that are allowing mass Third World immigration and other forms of suicidal liberalism.
The response to this is two-fold:
1. First, it is hardly “eugenic” when the better classes take advantage of birth control to become DINKs, or to have at most one child as they now do in much of Europe.
2. Second, the pro-choice movement is nothing but suicidal liberalism applied to the family. What could possibly be more suicidal than aborting your own genetic future and taking yourself out of having any genetic stake in the next generation?
“The alt Right, for both our own principles and the greater good, must oppose the pro-life agenda.”
Abortion is never about the “greater good.” Few women have abortions because they have weighed their options and decided it is what is best for society. Instead, they abort their children because they are convinced it is what is best for them. Among other things, this is why European countries like Spain, Greece, Italy and Russia are dying out because they have embraced a sick way of life – a culture of death – that is hostile to perpetuating their own existence.