COUNTERCURRENTSPUBLISHING

BooksAgainstTime
Like

HOME

2.6k

ABOUT

NEWS

NORTHAMERICANNEWRIGHT

OURTITLES

DISTRIBUTEDTITLES

PODCASTS

VIDEOS

DONATE

MAILINGLIST

CONTACT

Print this post

Search

HereticalThoughtsonAbortion&Eugenics

VideooftheDay:

MarianVanCourt

1,435words
OnceIsawaninterviewwithawoman
whosechildhadcysticfibrosis.Thechild
wasforcedtoendurelongmedical
treatmentseverydayjusttostayalive.
Testsshowedearlyinthepregnancythat
herbabywouldbeafflictedwithcystic
fibrosis,butthewomandecidednotto
abortbecause,shesaid,IfiguredthatId
ratherhavealifewithhealthproblems
thannolifeatall.
Strangelyenough,Idheardthisexact
samestatementoncebeforefrom
anotherwomanwhogavebirthtoachild

KindleSubscription

HugoSimbert,TheWoundedAngel,1903

OurTitles

anotherwomanwhogavebirthtoachild
withageneticdefect.Butwhatdoesitmean?YouandIareconsciousbeings,andas
such,wecertainlyrecoilattheprospectofhavingnolifeatall.Thatwoulddefinitelybe
aloss.Butifwehaddiedbeforewewereconsciousbeings,wasthereanyonethereto
sufferhavingnolifeatall?
Idohaveaproblemwithlatetermabortions,andIwasappalledtolearnsomeofthe
excuseswomengiveforwaitingsolong,suchas,Ikeptmeaningtodosomething
aboutit,butIjustkeptputtingitoff.Itseemsmonstroustotakeaviablefetusfroma
womanswombandthenkillit,soIampersonallysympathetictotheideathattheresa
pointatwhichabortionisnolongeranoption.Thetimingisproblematic,ofcourse,
becausethefetusmaturesverygradually,anditdoesntachieveviabilityand
consciousnessonanyparticulardate.
Numerousembryosdevelopnaturallyinthewombandthenspontaneouslyabort(the
womansperiodislate).Infact,geneticistsbelievethatperhapsthemajorityof
conceptionsspontaneouslyabort.ItwouldbeinterestingtohearwhatProLifershave
tosayaboutthat.Accordingtotheirowndubiousreasoning,everythingthathappens
naturallyisGodswill.WouldntthismeanthatGodabortsvastnumbersofembryos
andfetuses?Itsaninescapableconclusion.AndifGodcommitsabortion,thenhow
coulditbeaterriblesinagainstGod?Iseenowayoutofthiscontradiction.Embryos
andfetusesthatspontaneouslyabortareusuallydefective,oftenwithchromosomal
abnormalities,somaybethisgivesusaclueintoGodsintention.MaybeGoddoesnt
wantdefectivefetusescomingtotermandbecomingdefectivechildren.AndifGodisa
eugenicist,woulditbesowrongforustofollowGodsleadandonlydeliverhealthy
babies?
Supposeawomanlearnsearlyinherpregnancythatherpotentialchild,ifshecarriesit
toterm,willsufferfromseverementalretardation.Ibelievethattoknowinglygivebirth
toababywithanyseriousdefectiscruel,immoral,andacrimeagainstthatbeing.
Someprolifersareconcernedwithlifetotheexclusionofallotherconsiderations
suchasqualityoflife.Dotheycareatallaboutsuffering?Nowomanshouldletherself
befrightenedormadetofeelguiltyifshedecidestohaveanabortioninsucha
situation.Shemightnotwanttosacrificeherlifeinordertospenddecadeschanging
thediapersofaseverelyretardedchild,andshesurelyneednotapologizeforthat.But

thediapersofaseverelyretardedchild,andshesurelyneednotapologizeforthat.But
wouldsheberighteousifshecarriedittotermandbecameitsunpaid,unappreciated,
roundtheclock,lifetimeslave?No.Inmyopinion,shedbeafool.Themotherslife
mattersplenty,andthereareotherpeopletobeconcernedabout,inadditiontothe
mothersuchasthefather,theotherchildren,andthepotentialchilditselfshouldbe
consideredwhenthereslittlechanceitwouldleadanormallife.Whataboutthe
potentialhealthychildrenthatthemothermightforegobearingbecauseofthetimeand
expenseoftakingcareofaseverelyhandicappedorretardedchild?Oftenitsanactof
courageandcompassiontoabortandtotryagaintohaveahealthybaby.
EditorinChief
Typically,aseverelyretardedchild(oranyotherchildwithseriousgeneticimpairment)
requiresanextraordinaryamountofcare,morethananyonepersoncanprovide,and
thestate(a.k.a.thetaxpayer)virtuallyalwaysendsuppayingforit.Fairnesswould
seemtorequirethatthestateshouldthereforehavesomeinputifitpaysthebills,but,
ofcourse,itdoesnt.Astrongcasecanbemadethatparentshavenorighttoimposea
hugefinancialburdenontherestofsocietyiftheycanpossiblyavoidit.
Iftheparentssignalegallybindingcontractthattheywillassumetheentirelifetime
costofthechildthemselves,thatwouldbedifferent,butfewpeoplehavethatmuch
money.Parentswhoknowinglygivebirthtoseriouslydefectivechildrenarealso
evadingtheirresponsibilitytothelargersocietyunlesstheyacceptfullfinancial
responsibilityforthem.

Greg Johnson

OurAuthors
Kerry Bolton
Jonathan Bowden
Collin Cleary
Juleigh HowardHobson
Greg Johnson
Ward Kendall
Anthony M. Ludovici
Trevor Lynch
Andy Nowicki
James J. O'Meara

Somewouldmaintainthatevadingresponsibilityinthiswayisbothimmoralandun
Christian,andunfortunately,thisistheruleratherthantheexception.Almost
invariably,thelargersocietyisburdenedwiththeenormousexpense.Itsmy
understandingthatevenparentswithverysubstantialincomesstillobtainsocial
servicesforthesechildren.Ifallsuchparentswererequiredtotakefullresponsibility,a
fewmightverywellchangetheirmindsregardingtheirtotalandunconditional
oppositiontoabortion.Whentakingfullresponsibilitymeansfinancialruinandlifelong
slavery,myguessisthatatleastsomeProLiferswillfindtheirunwaveringprinciples
beginningtowaver.
Ideally,eugenicistswantWesterncountriestohavenationwideeugenicsprogramsof
incentivesanddisincentives,muchliketheeugenicsprogramthatexiststodayin

Michael O'Meara
Michael J. Polignano
Savitri Devi
Irmin Vinson
Leo Yankevich

DistributedAuthors
Alain de Benoist
Kerry Bolton
Jonathan Bowden
Houston Stewart
Chamberlain
Corneliu Codreanu

incentivesanddisincentives,muchliketheeugenicsprogramthatexiststodayin
Israel.(Isntthattheveryheightofirony?)Butsadly,wearenowherenearideally.
Politicaloppressionhasmadethisimpossibleforthetimebeingbecauseatinyethnic
minoritycontrolsourworld,andtheywanteugenicsforthemselves,anddysgenicsfor
everyoneelse.
Whilewecontinuetopromoteeugenicsgenerally,aswehavealwaysdone,andwork
tofreeourselvesfromthisoppression,wecanalsoengagepoliticallyinwaysthat
advanceeugenicswithoutevenhavingtomentiontheword.IntheUnitedStates,for
example,Republicanshavetakencontrolofmanystategovernmentsrecently,and
theyhavedramaticallyreducedthenumberofwomensclinics,sometimescuttingthe
numberbymorethan50%.Limitingaccesstocontraceptionandabortionishorribly
dysgenic.Smart,responsiblewomenwithinitiativeanddrivewillfindwaystogetthem,
whereaslesscapablewomenoftenwillnot,soclosingclinicsonlymakesabad
situationworse.
Justtoclarifyonepoint:theresexactlyzerochancethatwewilleverreturntothedays
inwhichtherewasnocontraception.Peoplealreadyknowallaboutit,clearlytheywant
it,andtherearenumerouscompaniesthatmakeandsellit.Wewillneverstuffthat
geniebackinthebottle.

Corneliu Codreanu
Jack Donovan
Alexander Dugin
Julius Evola
Guillaume Faye
Andrew Fraser
Madison Grant
Pierre Krebs
Pentti Linkola
H. P. Lovecraft
Anthony M. Ludovici
James Mason
H. L. Mencken
Revilo Oliver
Tito Perdue
Ragnar Redbeard
Wilmot Robertson
John Robison
Ernst von Salomon
Savitri Devi
Lothrop Stoddard
Bal Gangadar Tilak
Francis Parker Yockey

PlannedParenthoodisanaturalallyofeugenics.MargaretSanger(18831966)
foundedPlannedParenthood,shepioneeredtheuseofcontraception,andshewasan
outspokeneugenicist.Shesmostfrequentlyquotedashavingsaid,When
motherhoodbecomesthefruitofadeepyearning,nottheresultofignoranceor
accident,itschildrenwillbecomeanewrace.Thisiswhynearlyalleugenicistsare
prochoice,andsupportreproductiverights.SometimesIwonderhowmanyof
PlannedParenthoodspresentdayleadersarecloseteugenicists.
Recallthatthemajorcauseofdysgenics(geneticdeterioration)isthatlowIQwomen
havefarmoreaccidentalpregnanciesthanhigherIQwomenhave,andtheendresult
isthattheytypicallyhavemanymorechildrenthantheyintendedtohave.These
childrenareunplanned,andoftenunwanted,andtheyhavedisadvantagesintermsof
bothheredityandenvironment.Ifwecouldsomehowhaltthattrend,wecouldeliminate
dysgenics.Thenatleastwewouldbreakevengenetically.

Archives
April 2015(6)
March 2015(70)
February 2015(70)
January 2015(84)
December 2014(62)
November 2014(64)
October 2014(80)
September 2014(61)
August 2014(55)
July 2014(76)
June 2014(53)
May 2014(43)
April 2014(53)

dysgenics.Thenatleastwewouldbreakevengenetically.

April 2014(53)
March 2014(51)

Eugenicsisnotanallornothingproposition.Rather,everyminisculebitofprogress
wemakehelpsrealpeopleintheimmediatefuture.Regardlessofwherethingsstand
todaywhetherweliveinaeugenicutopia,oradysgenichellhole,orsomewherein
betweenwecanalwaysimprovethelivesofthosewhofollowus.Evenifwecanonly
reducetheseverityofdysgenics,thatsatotallyworthwhileendeavorbecausemany
livescanbeimproved,andsoon.Keepingonemorewomensclinicopenisworththe
fight.

February 2014(57)
January 2014(65)
December 2013(59)
November 2013(76)
October 2013(67)
September 2013(60)
August 2013(64)
July 2013(54)
June 2013(70)

Eugenicistsmustvigorouslyopposeallsocalledprolifecandidates,andtheutterly
outrageouspersonhoodamendments.Prolifeisasuperficiallyattractivetermthat
concealsasinisterinterior,becausewhatitreallymeansisunequalaccessto
contraceptionandabortion,whichinvariablycausesgeneticdeterioration.Justasthe
ideaofCommunismsoundedappealinginthebeginning,therealitywasuntoldmisery.
Itisthesamewithprolife.

May 2013(79)
April 2013(82)
March 2013(70)
February 2013(72)
January 2013(84)
December 2012(66)
November 2012(88)
October 2012(78)

September 2012(72)
August 2012(92)
July 2012(71)
June 2012(78)
May 2012(78)

Related

April 2012(80)
March 2012(69)
February 2012(58)
January 2012(75)
December 2011(72)
November 2011(69)
October 2011(98)
September 2011(61)

Ask a Eugenicist
In"NorthAmericanNew
Right"

The Fall of Man: Richard

Lynns Dysgenics
In"NorthAmericanNew
Right"

Ask a
EugenicistImplementing
a Eugenics Program
In"NorthAmericanNew
Right"

August 2011(77)
July 2011(68)
June 2011(63)
May 2011(66)
April 2011(67)
March 2011(70)

March 2011(70)
February 2011(72)
January 2011(94)
December 2010(92)
November 2010(75)
October 2010(78)

Eugenics versus Race

In"NorthAmericanNew
Right"

Ask a
EugenicistInterview with
Robert Klark Graham
In"NorthAmericanNew
Right"

Ask a EugenicistFear of a
Brighter Future
In"NorthAmericanNew
Right"

September 2010(77)
August 2010(57)
July 2010(71)
June 2010(43)

OnlineTexts

Ifyouenjoyedthispiece,andwishtoencouragemore
likeit,giveatipthroughPaypal.Youcanearmarkyour
tipdirectlytotheauthorortranslator,oryoucanputit
inageneralfund.(Besuretospecifywhichinthe"Add
specialinstructionstoseller"boxatPaypal.)

Departments
Articles
Podcasts
Book Excerpts
Interviews
English Translations

Tweet

11

Other Languages
Croatian
Czech
Danish

Published: March 23, 2015 | This entry was posted in NorthAmericanNewRight and tagged
abortion, articles, eugenics, familyplanning, MarianVanCourt, NorthAmericanNewRight,
originals, PlannedParenthood. Postacomment or leave a trackback: TrackbackURL.

Finnish

BibiWeHardlyKnewYa:

Greek

TheLessonsofNetanyahusReElection

AlbionsHiddenNumina

PeterShaffersEquus

French
German
Hungarian
Norwegian
Polish

42Comments

Portuguese
Russian
Slovak

1.

Bjorn

Spanish
Swedish

Posted March 23, 2015 at 8:34 am | Permalink

Interesting and challenging, thank you.

But I find it rather silly to make a fetus-sorting system based on the general health of

Ukrainian
Book Reviews
Movie News &

But I find it rather silly to make a fetus-sorting system based on the general health of
todays standard woman/man. It is quite frankly appalling. So you get a vast number of
physically and mentally degenerates created simply because the parents are physically
(& mentally) inept.

Movie News &

Reviews
TV Reviews
Music Reviews
Art Criticism

If you are to sort out the weed, do it before fertilization! This stupid patchwork in
hindsight is making us trying to play God no matter how much we try to suppress the
fact.

Graphic Novels &

Comics

And strange, is it not, that every time when in a discussion, if I try to argue for a health
promoting political regime, people call me a nazi. Sometimes it is hard to comprehend
how deeply the programming of self destruction has taken hold of us whites

Fiction

Video Game
Reviews
Poems
Commemorations
Why We Write

Reply

C-C Originals
Reprints

2.

rhondda

Contemporary
Authors
Michael Bell

Posted March 23, 2015 at 10:05 am | Permalink

I totally agree with this position. God gave us a mind and we should use it wisely.

Alain de Benoist
Reply

Kerry Bolton
Jonathan Bowden

3.

Collin Cleary

Verlis

Jef Costello

Posted March 23, 2015 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

F. Roger Devlin

Regarding pro-lifers (ptui), one of the great tragedies of American racial politics is that
the whites who are sensible about abortion are idiots (or avid liars) about race, while the
whites who are sensible (or reluctant liars) about race are idiots about abortion.

Jack Donovan
Mark Dyal
Guillaume Faye
Jeff Frankas

Reply

Tom Goodrich
Andrew Hamilton
Derek Hawthorne

4.

Stubbs

Gregory Hood

Posted March 23, 2015 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

Juleigh HowardHobson

ItwouldbeinterestingtohearwhatProLifershavetosayaboutthat.
Accordingtotheirowndubiousreasoning,everythingthathappens
naturallyisGodswill.WouldntthismeanthatGodabortsvast

Greg Johnson
Simon Lote
Trevor Lynch

naturallyisGodswill.WouldntthismeanthatGodabortsvast
numbersofembryosandfetuses?Itsaninescapableconclusion.Andif
Godcommitsabortion,thenhowcoulditbeaterriblesinagainstGod?I
seenowayoutofthiscontradiction.

Trevor Lynch
Kevin MacDonald
Guiliano Adriano
Malvicini

Its a sin because God prohibits humans from intentionally killing each other, even
though God eventually forces every human to die. You cant kill fetuses even though they
die on their own for the same reason you cant kill adults even though they get cancer,
die from old age, and get eaten by sharks. Death isnt evil, but humans intentionally
killing humans is evil.

John Michael
McCloughlin
Eugne Montsalvat
John Morgan
James J. O'Meara
Michael O'Meara

I agree with the eugenic position, but the pro-life position isnt contradicted by fetuses
dying in the womb.

Christopher
Pankhurst
Matt Parrott

Reply

Michael J.
Polignano
Edouard Rix

5.

Herv Ryssen

Verlis

Ted Sallis

Posted March 23, 2015 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

Robert Steuckers

Eugenicsisnotanallornothingproposition.Rather,everyminiscule
bitofprogresswemakehelpsrealpeopleintheimmediatefuture.

Tomislav Suni
Marian Van Court

Anti-eugenicists recoil in horror no matter how mild the eugenic policy proposed; the
mere fact of your eugenic desire alone is enough to set them off. When forced to explain
themselves they are keen to remind you of the potential unintended consequences of
your playing God. This from the same people who have no problem with the state
funding hundreds of thousands of (essentially) morons to procreate each year official
dysgenics in everything but name.
Reply

Dominique Venner
Irmin Vinson
Leo Yankevich
ClassicAuthors
Maurice Bardche
Julius Evola
Ernst Jnger
D. H. Lawrence

6.

Verlis
Posted March 23, 2015 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

Iagreewiththeeugenicposition,buttheprolifepositionisnt
contradictedbyfetusesdyinginthewomb.
If you agree with eugenics, then why give our opponents ammunition? Religionists and
pro-lifers (overwhelmingly one and the same) didnt settle on their position through
reason and are unlikely to be swayed by reason alone. That fetuses dying in wombs does

Charles Lindbergh
Jack London
H. P. Lovecraft
Anthony M.
Ludovici
Sir Oswald Mosley
National Vanguard
Friedrich Nietzsche

DistributedTitles

reason and are unlikely to be swayed by reason alone. That fetuses dying in wombs does
not necessarily contradict the pro-life position is unimportant; its quite enough that
fetuses dying in wombs weakenstheemotionalhold that pro-life tommyrot has on its
victims. Similarly, the argument-from-evil doesnt necessarily rule out God, but the
realization that God refuses to prevent suffering that is within his power to prevent
(even when implored to do so) can so deflate the religionist that he sours on the idea of
God altogether.

Friedrich Nietzsche
Revilo Oliver
William Pierce
Ezra Pound
Saint-Loup
Savitri Devi
Carl Schmitt

Reply

Miguel Serrano
Oswald Spengler
P. R. Stephensen

EzraPound'sGhost

Jean Thiriart

Posted April 2, 2015 at 10:42 am | Permalink

John Tyndall

Religionists and pro-lifers. didnt settle on their position through reason and
are unlikely to be swayed by reason alone. What a load of utter ideological horse
puckey. I always frame the abortion (and birth control) question thusly: Would it
be desirable to invent a pill which when ingested suppressed all sense of physical
pain? Obviously such a pill would not be desirable and the reason is because
human beings have been evolving for millions of years within a certain
environment whereby when X occurs (e.g., when I put my finger in a flame), Y
inevitably follows (I burn my finger). The hypothetical pain-killing pill would
have the effect to severing that million-year-old cause and effect relationship
which in turn would lead to gross social chaos. (If no one was afraid of pain, what
kinds of crazy things would people do?) Abortion and contraception are the same
thing. Humans have been evolving for millions of years in an environment
whereby when two people had sex, a child (almost) inevitably followed. What
abortion and birth control have done is throw a monkey-wrench into that
million-year-old environment and totally disrupted it. All things being equal, a
young woman regulates her sexuality on the basis of the knowledge that sex leads
to babies. When sex no longer necessarily leads to babies, what incentive does a
young woman have to regulate her sexuality? Whatever motivation it is, if any, it
cannot compare to the possibility of childbirth. So, the real argument against
abortion, to my thinking, is not about the lives of the babies or about usurping
Gods authority (though those are good reasons in and of themselves), it is about
social stability. Also, I firmly believe, but dont have the statistics to back it up,
that the availability of abortions is both generally dysgenic and also leads to more
unwanted births: this is because knowing that abortion is available encourages
reckless sexual behavior (if I get pregnant I can just get an abortion), which
often results in pregnancy, but then the mother, for one reason or another, cant
actually bring herself to kill the child (or else sees $$$ in welfare money), so it is
born anyway, whereas if abortion hadnt been an option, she would not have

Francis Parker
Yockey

RecentComments
Greg Johnson on
Counter-Currents Still
Under Siege
Greg Johnson on
Counter-Currents Still
Under Siege
Stronza on CounterCurrents Still Under
Siege
marian van court on
Remembering Lee Kuan
Yew
Ezra Pound's Ghost on
Heretical Thoughts on
Abortion & Eugenics
Ezra Pound's Ghost on
Counter-Currents Still
Under Siege
Ezra Pound's Ghost on
Heretical Thoughts on
Abortion & Eugenics
James O'Meara on
Tiffany Thayer & the

born anyway, whereas if abortion hadnt been an option, she would not have
chosen to engage in the risky behavior in the first place. If abortion is so eugenic,
then why are WASPs such a totally degerated and barren group compared to
when they embraced Sangers quackery in the 1930s? And as far as Jews go, they
have more genetic diseases and mental illness than any other group of people out
there.
Reply

Tiffany Thayer & the

Fortean Fascists, Part 2
Theodore on CounterCurrents Still Under
Siege
Greg Johnson on
Maurice Cowling:
Ultra-Conservative
Extraordinaire

7.

MattS.
Posted March 23, 2015 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

I remember Marian Van Court bringing up this issue in an previous article. Im glad to
see he decided to elaborate on this further and expand it into a article. I couldnt agree
with him more. This is yet another issue that differentiates us from Conservative
Christians or unimaginative reactionariesor whatever youd like to call them.
Through various conversations and from asking myself innumerable times: How can
one possibly be against the upward breeding of humanity? Ive come to see the
underlying cause of their hostility. At heart, their hostility stems from the interpretive
framework which they use to evaluate the idea. The problem is their binary
BLACK/WHITE dualism; as opposed to our holistic, hierarchical sense-of-things which
immediately recognizes eugenics as a worthy pursuit. Their dualistic good/evil division
of the world ultimately derives from the metaphysical outlook of Christianity.
I bring this up not in an attempt to create discord; but only to address the root cause of
the problem, as I see it. To use a metaphor, the problems origin is in the Operating
System in which the concept of eugenics is interpreted. Inhabiting the universalist
Judeo-Christian Cultural Matrix the Conservative Christian cannot but interpret
eugenics from within his BLACK/WHITE dualism. The idea of eugenics impels him to
contemplate a differentiating of things and he can only differentiate between good
and bad, black and white, light and dark. So the concept of eugenics registers in him
as the process of placing mentally retarded children into the category of bad or evil.
And inherent to the differentiation process in the dualistic framework is the requirement
to malign and persecute the bad. Invariably, he almost instantaneously jumps from
contemplating our proposition of only keeping pregnancies that will result in healthy
offspring to contemplating the eradication of mentally retarded or otherwise malformed
people that are already alive today. For him and for the dualistic conception of life this
logically follows. After all bad is bad his inner Puritan advises him. For the
Conservative Christian the thought of this proves too much and so he turns away in fear,
realizing that to pursue such a course would require he become a monster. He back-

realizing that to pursue such a course would require he become a monster. He backpeddleshe stares at us in disgust and insist that mentally retarded children arent bad
but GOOD. They go in the white/good box not the black/bad box! MONSTERS he
labels us and the idea! And we are left staring at him in disbelief with our jaw dropping
half open.
If we are left staring at him in astonishment, unable to account for his hostility to what,
in our eyes, is such a sensible practice it is because we are not cognizant of the fact that
his Operating System doesnt support holistic, hierarchical ideas. His behavior is
inexplicable to us because we dont adhere to a life stunting dualistic conception-of-theworld. We dont categorize the world into good vs. bad or sin vs. righteousness.
Instead the operative antithesis in our conception-of-the-world is the classical antithesis
of noble vs. base. In the Monotheistic, Judeo-Christian conception-of-the-world sin
is never permittedit cannot be, it must be snuffed out and deniedrighteousness
alone is permitted; but in our holistic, hierarchical conception-of-the-world base exist
and will continue to exist. It exist at the bottom of the pyramid. But the noble resides
at the apex and its pursuit is a worthy pursuit. We can enter a discussion with a
prospective mother who has just received the horrible news, from her Obstetrician, that
her child-to-be will be born with down-syndrome and advise her to have an abortion,
then conceive again so as to give birth to a healthy offspring. This is an easy line for us to
draw. It is our advise for her to pursue excellence to put her time and energy towards
greatness. We are Nietzsches great Yes-sayers. But for a Conservative Christian to have
an abortion under such circumstances would be a saying of no. For him this drawing of
a line and saying no prompts a revaluation in the boundaries: If mentally retarded
children are bad, then so are the mentally retarded people who are already here. Who
else can I cast out into outer darkness while Im at it?
Wait a moment he says to himself. Then he remembers that he is very fat, or very
skinny, or has a wonky eye. What if the line gets pushed so far that he falls into the not
good enough category. Seized by fear he calls the whole line-drawing business off. His
degraded ears can only hear eugenics in such a way. Whereas for us when we hear the
word we think how great it would be to be born in a better body with greater potential!
And how we can give this to our children!
(P.S. Please excuse my reliance on capitalization for emphasis. Ive yet to figure out
how to italicized words in comments here. Can anyone advise me on how to do so?)

Reply

FranklinRyckaert
Posted March 23, 2015 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

@ Matt S.
That is a perceptive critique of the Christian simplistic dualistic good/evil
worldview! And that worldview is all-pervasive, operative not only in questions of
abortion.
Take for example the subject of sin. Either you are a sinner or you are
virtuous.
Sinners go to eternal hell, the virtuous go to eternal heaven. No shades of grey
here, as if not most people are mixtures of sin and virtue, though in different
proportions. You can find a good example of this simplistic dualistic thinking in
Matthew 25 : 31-46 where the Son of man sits upon the throne to judge the
nations, who will be separated into sheep and goats, the former destined for
eternal heaven, the latter for eternal hell.
It is the same with orthodoxy, either you have the right dogma, which comes
from God, or you have the wrong dogma, which therefore can only come from
Satan.
Christians are structurally incapable of thinking in gradations.
Reply

8.

Snake
Posted March 23, 2015 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

I dont think the argument that God causes spontaneous abortions, ergo we can abort.
holds water. In the Bible, God does all kinds of things forbidden to mortals. Not that I
disagree with your positions on eugenic abortion. Burdening productive Whites with
deformed children is monstrously cruel.

Reply

9.

Jaego
Posted March 23, 2015 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

Some good points but is Planned Parenthood good? Abortion is big business and they
want all the abortions they can convince women to have. And in the process, they dont
discriminate between healthy and unhealthy unborn babies. Nor do most of the women
who have abortions. If having a terribly defective baby is wrong (and I agree that it is),
surely aborting a healthy baby is equally wrong or more wrong.
Many women who succumb to the culture of casual abortions of Convenience (a new
god), deeply regret it and mourn their dead baby for years after, usually around the time
of year the abortion was done or the time when it would have been born. Also Planned
Parenthood minimizes the real physical risks. Abortion is not a minor procedure.
Reply

10.

rhondda
Posted March 23, 2015 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

We cant sort out the weed before conception yet as far as I know. There can be the
threat of passing something along. It is only after conception, that it can be detected. So
that is the risk now for not everything is passed on. But, if you know from tests and ultra
sounds that something is terribly wrong, why would anyone with half a heart want that
child to be born? Its cruel to bring someone into life that is going to be helpless and
mocked and scorned for the rest of his life, no matter how you try to politically correct
the masses
I have found that pro-lifers are anti- abortion, but usually pro death-penalty. Now go
figure.
They even put retarded people to death for murder. Think George Bush in Texas.
I have also found that people who have severely damaged children get burned out very
fast and require services from the state and then will upon maturity get those kids into
some kind of institution. Well, if you know this before, why dont these religious people
create those institutions, instead of the state? They dont. They just want to preach to
others and feel sanctimonious.

Reply

Jaego
Posted March 23, 2015 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

Two different questions. The convicted criminal is guilty by definition. The

unborn baby is not. Just so, Christianity is not pacifism. War is not murder. Same
with Buddhism. Buddha taught pacifism for monks, not laymen. The Liberals are
shocked that the Burmese are defending themselves against the Muslims. If they
understood Buddhism more they wouldnt be.
Reply

rhondda
Posted March 24, 2015 at 10:34 am | Permalink

A retarded person who kills someone is no more guilty than a child. They
are incapable of discerning right and wrong.
Reply

Jaego
Posted March 24, 2015 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

Well most places dont do that. Most retarded killers are

incarcerated for the duration I believe. In any case: my point
stands. The unborn are innocent and most murderers are not.
There is no contradiction here in Christian ethics, though I agree
there may be elsewhere.
From another angle: we practice the morality we can afford.
Hunter Gatherers sometimes expose healthy infants if they are
starving and the mother has no milk for them. What else are they
going to do? Just so, incarcerating people is expensive. If you cant
afford to take care of a retarded murderer, then you have to
execute him, whether hes responsible or not. Of course
individualized atomized women claim the same thing in regards to
abortion when there are all kinds of other options open for them.
They just dont want to bother. They want to get on with their life
and lets face it, nothing is more ruthless than a woman who wants

and lets face it, nothing is more ruthless than a woman who wants
to get on with her life as so many men find out to their cost.
Reply

rhondda
Posted March 24, 2015 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

Well, if you are a Christian, you have a lot to learn about

ethics. Rationalizing behaviour is so typical of those who
call themselves Christian because it is expedient. It is not
just women who want to get on with their lives. A lot of men
who dont want children intimidate their girl friends to get
an abortion. Therein I can see the guilt a woman would
have.

Jaego
Posted March 25, 2015 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

Well you have a point about men being often being

complicit as well, both as boyfriends and as doctors. My
point is that by the very nature of our reproductive system,
woman are called to greater selflessness in that they must
host the unborn baby for nine months inside their own
body. And for this they have been honored by traditional
society. And thus the My body my decision mentality is
seen as such an egregious betrayal of both Society, Culture,
Nature, and the Divine Order. And the frosting on the cake
is when the same people deny men the right to choose NOT
to be fathers.
Also you do have a point about the insufficiency of Christian
ethics in regards to hopelessly defective babies. Pop
spirituality now comes to the aid and people start raving
that God has a special plan for that Baby. Traditional
cultures would say it was a curse or an affliction. Buddhists
might say that it was a karmic debt that must be paid. I like
what Stronza says, its the misuse of technology, a

what Stronza says, its the misuse of technology, a

technology that Religious Ethics (including Christian)
havent caught up with yet.

Stronza
Posted March 24, 2015 at 2:27 am | Permalink

Itscrueltobringsomeoneintolifethatisgoingtobehelplessandmockedand
scornedfortherestofhislife.
The vast majority of babies who are born seriously defective die soon after birth if
high tech, expensive treatment is withheld. Lack of abortion is not the problem;
doctors playing God and parents refusing to recognize the necessity of natural
death of a defective child are the problem. Abortion is inherently repulsive no
matter what. The point is to let nature take its course.
Reply

rhondda
Posted March 24, 2015 at 10:37 am | Permalink

So I guess you are all for putting them on a rock in the wilderness then
and let nature take its course. Where do you come from? People try to
keep alive what is living. How is it different playing God by keeping
someone alive or performing an abortion? You contradict yourself.
Reply

Stronza
Posted March 24, 2015 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

No need to expose the defective babies to the elements. You just

give them water, keep them comfy, and withhold treatment. This
happens in hospitals when the child is really in bad shape at birth.

happens in hospitals when the child is really in bad shape at birth.

A damn sight better than vacuuming them apart. But the medical
industry is moving the line separating absolutely hopeless and
hey, lets try everything on this kid and believe me, kind friend, it
isnt to make the parents happy. Its to keep their own professions
necessary.
I know of a Christard couple (the father is my friends brother)
whose baby was born with an enzyme missing. There is some
inbreeding in this ethnic group. As the months went by, she was
kept alive by interventions that would curl your toes. She died,
anyway, a few months later, after costing, who knows hundreds
of thousands of dollars. And dont tell me these medical shysters
thought there was a chance. No baby with that particular condition
lives for long and when lifespan is extended somewhat, it is full of
pain and debility.
These kinds of ultra-pricey, pain-inducing interventions are the
product of a prosperous, liberal, technology-pooisoned society.
And I doubt its going to last much longer. And while Im here
abortion of any kind, at any stage, is very, very unhealthy for the
woman. Abortion cannot be made okay. The storm of pregnancy
hormones suddenly cut short is just the beginning.
Reply

rhondda
Posted March 24, 2015 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

Nice try. No cigar. There is no proof that abortions are

unhealthy. It is Christians imposing their guilt upon her. I
could agree that some doctors have god complexes, and
keep people alive longer than they should, but at the same
time they take a oath to preserve life. The whole question as
to when a fetus is viable is a whole different ball game and I
figure if you know what is there it is better at the beginning
to end it than bring it to life and let it die.

11.

Verlis
Posted March 23, 2015 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

Wecanenteradiscussionwithaprospectivemotherwhohasjust
receivedthehorriblenews,fromherObstetrician,thatherchildtobe
willbebornwithdownsyndromeandadvisehertohaveanabortion,
Sure, but why not go a step further and sweeten the deal with a cash payment? The only
way to abuse the system would be to intentionally create a fetus with Downs but its
hard to see how anyone could rig that. The point would not only be to increase the
likelihood of abortion, but also to accustom society to funding its genetic future, ie
starting with some as simple and obvious* as paying for Downs abortions and
expanding it to well, the skys the limit.
*Simple and obvious to those who prefer to think rather emote, that is. For the Matt
Parrots of the world, however, aborting undesirables is precisely the wrong the thing to
do, Instead you want to increase the number of retards and no-hopers and have society
pay through the nose for the privilege. Making ones society dumber, weaker and poorer
is the key to good living as he sees it all the while engaged in a breeding war with the
third world.
Reply

12.

PM
Posted March 23, 2015 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

Heres an essay I wrote on abortion which I think sheds some light on why Christians
have pro-life tendencies: https://cognitiveparfait.wordpress.com/category/abortion/
Reply

13.

Sandy
Posted March 24, 2015 at 2:51 am | Permalink

The time is not right for eugenics.

Reply

14.

LorenzKraus
Posted March 24, 2015 at 5:10 am | Permalink

If soldiers are obligated to do their duty for the good of the whole and risk death, isnt it
the obligation of the unwanted defective fetus to do its duty for the good of the whole?
If it does its duty and goes down with the ship of its unfitness, it has some redeeming
spiritual qualities. Whereas, birth of a monster drains the life out of everyone else.
There is a difference between morality and duty culture. Duty is kin-serving action and is
honestly focused on what is best for our lives; whereas morality does not see anything,
but arbitrarily drawn lines of right or wrong, which is just like dollar culture, profit or no
profit.
In dollar culture, if interracial child-porn sells, you are celebrated and get on Forbes. In
duty culture, there are some things you dont dare to produce or consume because it is
kin-destroying; and those who do such things would be beaten to death in the streets.
Duty culture would find ways to keep the peace, but self-righteous dollar culture finds
kin-killing the core of being a GREAT AMERICAN!
Kin-killing is both profitable and righteous, but destroys civilization.
http://lorenzkraus.com/index.php?cID=161
I have come to the conclusion that the real division among whites is whether or not they
have a duty culture or a dollar culture. This is why whites are pathological or not,
atomized or not, weak or not, and this is what gives Jews the opportunity to exploit
weakness to gain power.
The Buddhists have a devil known as Mara, and it controls the world by its appetites.
The Jews target the appetites of the weak to buy political power over the strong; starting
with prostitution, booze, gambling, and drugs. Bill Clinton is the perfect monstrosity, a
slave to his worst appetites who is easily exploited by the Jews; just like Henry VIII.
Whites need to restore a duty culture before they can defeat the Jews. Since Jews are no

Whites need to restore a duty culture before they can defeat the Jews. Since Jews are no
kin of ours, they dont fit in our society.
Reply

15.

MattParrott
Posted March 24, 2015 at 11:56 am | Permalink

Silver,
FortheMattParrot[t]softheworld,however,abortingundesirablesis
preciselythewrongthethingtodo,Insteadyouwanttoincreasethe
numberofretardsandnohopersandhavesocietypaythroughthenose
fortheprivilege.Makingonessocietydumber,weakerandpooreristhe
keytogoodlivingasheseesitallthewhileengagedinabreedingwar
withthethirdworld.
Can you honestly look around today at our current circumstances and conclude that our
collective lack of intelligence or the expense of assisting our less fortunate folks number
among the major problems afflicting us? I clearly explained in my response article that I
take genetic fitness seriously, and clearly spelled out how that can continue to be
achieved without resorting to abortion.
Its like you imagine that our Planned Parenthood clinics are rocky cliffs where stoic
elders carry defective infants to die of exposure for the good of the warrior society,
rather than a pathetic and dreary place where young women of every race, intelligence
level, degree of fitness, or whatever calmly file in to act on their selfish materialist and
anti-natalist priorities.
Reply

GregJohnson
Posted March 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

I used to be anti-abortion until I learned that in the US, more than 1 in 3 nonwhite pregnancies end in abortion. Beyond that, there is a high likelihood that
white women who avail themselves of abortions are carrying a disproportionate
number of non-white babies, whether due to rape or simply stupidity but then
they wake up when they get pregnant and realize that Rufus is not likely to be

they wake up when they get pregnant and realize that Rufus is not likely to be
much of a provider. Were it not for legal abortion, whites would probably be a
minority in this country already.
In a sensible society, of course, abortion would not be a matter of personal
choice. For some it would be obligatory. For others it would be forbidden. But in
no cases would it simply be a choice of the mother. Why? Because abortion is
killing a human being, and one cannot kill human beings without good reasons.
But there are good reasons to kill some people, and aborting racially mixed or
severely handicapped children is a good enough reason.
Reply

Jaego
Posted March 24, 2015 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

Good point. I think most people here are arguing from the abstract point
of view, that of universal ethics. And isnt that just what we are against
here? Perhaps the Jews have it right: abortion is good for the out group
but not for the in group, be they either Jews or in our case, Whites. And
especially good if you (the in group) get to make money doing the
abortions.
Your vision for our own Society is rational inhumanly so. Could we
realize it without become more than human? I fear a intrusive State
Tyranny would develop in order to enforce it otherwise. What are your
checks and balances in regards to State power?
Reply

Verlis
Posted March 25, 2015 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

Inasensiblesociety,ofcourse,abortionwouldnotbea
matterofpersonalchoice.Forsomeitwouldbeobligatory.
Forothersitwouldbeforbidden.Butinnocaseswouldit
simplybeachoiceofthemother.Why?Becauseabortionis
killingahumanbeing,andonecannotkillhumanbeings

killingahumanbeing,andonecannotkillhumanbeings
withoutgoodreasons.Buttherearegoodreasonstokill
somepeople,andabortingraciallymixedorseverely
handicappedchildrenisagoodenoughreason.
Most abortionists do not regard fetuses as human beings so they do not
believe they are killing human beings. The point at which a fetus becomes
a human is always going to be arbitrary but we can see that the distinction
is valid because abortionists who feel completely at ease destroying
fetuses are outraged by killing actual human beings and no amount of
pro-life verbiage will change those feelings.
I think its best to liken the period between conception and birth to an
engagement to marry. If all goes well youll end up married, but you can
fairly back out at any point before then. Similarly, if all is well youll end
up bringing a human being into the world, but you can fairly back out at
any point before actual birth.
Reply

16.

rhondda
Posted March 24, 2015 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

What I would like to know is why Christians are such sadists. One is supposed to
alleviate suffering, not compound it. Matthew 25: 40 Truly I say to you, as you did it not
to one of the least of these, you did it not to me. Lets put it in the positive frame. If you
do not help the least, you are not helping me. Why would a Christian who knew a woman
was carrying a child that was going go die anyway, want that woman to carry that child
for nine months knowing it will die anyway. Just as I thought most Christians like to see
others suffer so they can feel superior and think they did the will of God without really
thinking about it. SADISTS, and the woman who agrees with this is none other than a
masochist.
Reply

Stronza
Posted March 25, 2015 at 10:26 am | Permalink

Posted March 25, 2015 at 10:26 am | Permalink

Knowing that a child will die [soon after birth] is a product of a twisted,
demented civilization, that is, mis-use of technology.
In the past, this is how it went: you had a baby; it was sickly; you gave it simple
normal care; it died. You mourned and you maybe went on to make more babies
(or not). In certain parts of the world, you exposed the child to the elements but
in Christian society we dont do that.
Today:
Situation #1: you got pregnant; you went for diagnostic tests; you were told your
baby was seriously defective; you had an abortion, or in the case of serious
Christians, refused an abortion. In the latter situation, you had the baby, it died
in your arms, and you believed with all your heart that it was now in the arms of
Christ.
Situation #2: you got pregnant; you may or may not have had diagnosis of a weak
but not mortally defective fetus; you birthed the child; you, likely with the
financial input of state, pull out all the technological stops to keep it going. It
was made superficially healthy enough to go on to reproduce itself and the rest is
our history.
It is all about technology being applied where it should not. Every day I hope and
pray for a collapse of our civilization, and soon, even if it takes me along maybe
especially if I go down with the ship. I cant look at the hubris of what are
supposed to be my people much longer.
Reply

Jaego
Posted March 25, 2015 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

Well said. And actually the Church has never demanded that
extraordinary efforts be made to prolong life in the case of a terminal
illness. So why would they insist that extraordinary efforts be made to
prolong life that wasnt viable? Do they? Im not sure.
Reply

Reply

rhondda
Posted March 25, 2015 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

Read your Bible Stronza. I am so grateful for Martin Luther.

Reply

17.

Highland
Posted March 25, 2015 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

Abortion is the killing of a defenceless Baby.

Reply

GregJohnson
Posted March 25, 2015 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

Yes, so one better have a good reason.

Reply

18.

Verlis
Posted March 25, 2015 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

Canyouhonestlylookaroundtodayatourcurrentcircumstancesand
concludethatourcollectivelackofintelligenceortheexpenseofassisting
ourlessfortunatefolksnumberamongthemajorproblemsafflictingus?
Im more concerned about the destination that is set and the direction being travelled. A
successful society must choose the right destination and take the correct path to arrive
there. Intentionally or unintentionally increasing the number of defectives and

there. Intentionally or unintentionally increasing the number of defectives and

incompetents is both the wrong destination as well as the wrong path to the right
destination.
IclearlyexplainedinmyresponsearticlethatItakegeneticfitness
seriously,andclearlyspelledouthowthatcancontinuetobeachieved
withoutresortingtoabortion.
Im afraid all I saw was mushy idealism and little reason to think it would work as
intended. I see the following problems with your position.
Firstly, as the economic truism teaches us, you get what you pay for. If you expand
welfare to take even greater care of defectives and incompetents you will end up with
more defectives and incompetents. You say this isnt a problem because defectives and
incompetents can be sterilized, so theres no need to abort them. This ignores the fact
that funds diverted to caring for them are funds that cannot be used for other, more
worthwhile, purposes. Abortion is very clearly the more affordable option.
Secondly, the existence of defectives and incompetents ensures that they will perpetually
command attention, with bleeding hearts forever insisting that more should be done for
them and critiquing society for failing to, which again diverts resources and mental
energy away from more worthwhile endeavors. Abortion, on the other hand, provides a
more definite solution: once its done the problem is out of sight and out of mind.
Thirdly, although I agree that sterilization should be expanded, there will always be
some who should have been sterilized who go onto procreate anyway. Abortion in these
cases affords society a last chance reprieve.
Fourthly, you claim that a more caring society would so strengthen the bonds between
people that it would automatically become more eugenic. However the only mechanism
you propose is that high IQ individuals would feel more inspired to procreate. This is
assumption is far too speculative to form the basis of social policy. Even if they were to
procreate at a higher rate, would this rate be high enough to offset the rate at which
incompetents breed? Its difficult to think so, and anyway the inspiration argument does
not in itself obviate the case for abortion.
As I see it, when all is said and done, it comes back to you being first and finally
opposed to abortion for dogmatic religious reasons. Call me callous but I cant interpret
that any other way than: God wants society to be dumber, weaker, and poorer.
ItslikeyouimaginethatourPlannedParenthoodclinicsarerockycliffs

ItslikeyouimaginethatourPlannedParenthoodclinicsarerockycliffs
wherestoicelderscarrydefectiveinfantstodieofexposureforthegood
ofthewarriorsociety,ratherthanapatheticanddrearyplacewhere
youngwomenofeveryrace,intelligencelevel,degreeoffitness,or
whatevercalmlyfileintoactontheirselfishmaterialistandantinatalist
priorities.
Thosewhoforesawtheneedfortheclinics,whoopenedthem,runthem
andwhocontinuetomakethecaseforthemarethestoicelders,notthe
clinicsthemselves.Frankly,aslongastheyregettingthejobdoneIcould
scarcelycarelessaboutwhatgoesonthereortheattitudesoftheclientele
whowalkinthedoor.Ihaveneverlostsightoftheimportanceofthe
individualsoImnotremotelydisturbedbythatclientelesselfishor
materialistmotives.AsfarasImconcerned,goodonem.
Reply

MattParrott
Posted March 27, 2015 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

HowevertheonlymechanismyouproposeisthathighIQ
individualswouldfeelmoreinspiredtoprocreate.Thisis
assumptionisfartoospeculativetoformthebasisofsocialpolicy.
Eveniftheyweretoprocreateatahigherrate,wouldthisratebe
highenoughtooffsettherateatwhichincompetentsbreed?
Far too speculative? Theres nothing speculative about whats going on in the
Amish, FLDS, and quiverfull movements which are overwhelmingly White and
all producing rather impressive broods in terms of both quantity and quality. The
Amish case of identifying a genetic issue in their community and arriving at
successful practical solutions to improve the eugenic fitness of their future
generations is pretty much the final nail in the false dichotomy between favoring
eugenics and fostering a morality and culture which sacralizes pregnancy and
human life.
Reply

Verlis
Posted March 27, 2015 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

Posted March 27, 2015 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

Quantity is straightforward enough to measure, but Im afraid anyone

with a serious interest in eugenics is going to require more than Matt
Parrotts assurances about quality.
falsedichotomybetweenfavoringeugenicsandfosteringamoralityand
culturewhichsacralizespregnancyandhumanlife.
One can sacralize human life without sacralizing pregnancy. I hold the
phenomenon of human life to be sacred, not the means of its creation.
Should there come a time when human life can be created via an artificial
womb I would feel no differently about the resulting human than I would
about a human created via traditional means.
I would not feel differently beyond initial surprise and ongoing
fascination if it emerged that a friend or a loved one had been brought
into the world via such means, nor would I feel differently about myself if
I learned that I had been so created. Id certainly be very excited by the
discovery, but I wouldnt feel funny or wrong or less than as a human
entity.
I do however wonder if, rather like the replicants in BladeRunner, I
wouldnt feel aggrieved by some inadequacy that had been programmed
into me. After all, my creation would have had a degree of intentionality
behind it considerably greater than that typically intended by traditional
parents and perhaps Id always wonder if there wasnt something more my
creators, in their wisdom, could have done. This is admittedly perplexing,
but is it any worse than believing that you and all your inadequacies
are the result of Gods special plan?
The reason Ive veered off into these questions is to make the contrast
clear between what your traditionalist school of thought wants for people
and what my vision of eugenics offers them. When you get down to it, you
wish to once again bind society to the dictates of a pettifogging Hebrew
tribal deity. If you speak glowingly of FLDS I have no recourse but to treat
your eugenics-talk as mere window-dressing designed to draw in gullible
fools.
That said, I recognize that spiritual inspiration is important. Therefore I
suggest we leave behind fairy tales of being Gods children and introduce
fairly tales of being scions of the stars, in whose spectacular deaths was

fairly tales of being scions of the stars, in whose spectacular deaths was
formed and dispersed throughout the universe the very stuff of our being
which star died so that I may live? and among which it is our duty and
destiny to one day disperse ourselves. The dispersal itself is inevitable, but
the manner in which we are dispersed is in our hands. If we disperse
wilfully and intact we will have succeeded; as the ashes of an exploding
sun, we will have failed. I mean for us to succeed.
Reply

19.

marianvancourt
Posted March 25, 2015 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

I wrote this short paper because Henrik Palmgren asked me a question about abortion
and eugenics in an interview I did recently for Red Ice Radio. (It will be put up on their
website shortly.) I had never even hear of Red Ice before, but I just realized that its a
great resource, all kinds of fascinating people are interviewed, lots of stuff about the
Jews.
Rhondda, I always seem to agree with you on almost everything. Snake and Stubbs both
made the excellent point that just because God causes abortions, doesnt mean that its
OK for us to do it. Thanks! Im a little bit embarrassed about my mistake, but Im mostly
glad to be corrected. I cant figure out how to italicize words, either, but one other way
besides all caps might be to put an asterisk on either side of the word.
Reply

Proofreader
Posted March 26, 2015 at 5:01 am | Permalink

To italicize words, insert an before the text to be italicized, and insert an after the
text to be italicized, minus the hyphens; Ive inserted hyphens so that these
characters are shown and so that the text is not automatically italicized.

Reply

20.

Theodore
Posted March 28, 2015 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

Aspects of this comments thread have certainly been amusing, but Id like to add a note
of caution.
I have always been a very strong supporter of eugenics, but we must be careful due to a
lack of complete understanding of the consequences. I would suggest that such projects
begin with a holistic approach, seeking to enhance the reproduction of overall superior
and accomplished specimens, while targeting for decreased reproduction those
obviously defective. Im not sure emphasizing isolated specific traits is prudent at this
point.
For example, it may seem like a good idea to focus on increasing intelligence, lawabidedness, altruism, and decreasing anxiety/neuroticism, dark triad sociopathic traits,
etc. But we cannot be sure that some of these negative traits are not linked to
creativity, ambition, leadership, etc. We could overshoot the mark and end up with a
race of intelligent but highly pacified Last Men, unable to muster those more ruthless
traits required for self-defense, expansion, over-coming, self-mastery, and actualization
of a high culture. It may be that, at least in the short and medium term, the likes of Ted
Bundy and Bill Clinton are the price to pay in order to get a Mozart or a Napoleon (the
old Star Trek episode, The Enemy Within is instructive as per this concept). All order
and no chaos leads to stagnation. I have no problem in saying: the creative genius should
have more children and the sickly retardate none. However, highly focused breeding of
isolated traits, without an understanding of how all are linked, could be problematical.
So, a hearty yes to eugenics, but a skeptic eye towards those who want to immediately
jump in and fine-tune traits in isolation, without knowing the data of how traits are
coinherited.
Reply

21.

EzraPound'sGhost
Posted April 2, 2015 at 11:06 am | Permalink

And regarding eugenics, if by that word ones means judicious selection of breeding
partners, I am all for it. But if by Eugenics you mean the state decides who may breed
with whom, when and how, then I would fight to the death to destroy such an in-/anti-

with whom, when and how, then I would fight to the death to destroy such an in-/antihuman regime. And when people point to dogs and horses as successful examples of
eugenics, I only have an urge to beat my head against a wall. The reason why eugenics
works for dogs and horses is because they are a different species from human beings.
Eugenics is a means toward some end, usually defined as a series of desirable
geno/phenotypic traits. When humans eugenicize certain animals, it is only possible
because human beings decide what those animals are for. We decide that a horse is for
e.g., plowing, riding, showing etc. We decide a dog is for hunting and protection, etc.
Well, what is a human being for and who decides that? ? Eugenics on animals is
possible because animals are simply instruments for human use, and thus we can
rationally determine what these animals are for (vis-a-vis) ourselves. But human
beings are not simply instruments to be used by and for other human beings. Human
beings are ends in themselves, and therefore no human being or group of human beings
is capable of saying what any given human is for with any real legitimacy. What human
beings are for is determined by something other than human beings. This is all easily
provable as well. Look at pure-bred dogs, the pinnacle of successful eugenics. Any given
pure-bred dog is good for certain things, but most of the time, the accentuation of
traits that any given animal is bred for results in the depreciation of other, often
essential, traits that are mutilated or suppressed by the eugenics. An English bulldog,
for example, is incapable of surviving in nature without human support. Most purebred animals are incapable of surviving without human support because the natural
concert of traits that help it survive has been disrupted by human intervention in order
to accentuate one suite of traits over another. The natural lifespan of a horse is about 30
years, but the average lifespan of a racing horse is under 7 years. Why? One might want
to say that it is simply not profitable enough for an owner to keep an old racehorse alive.
But there is a missing premise there: the missing premise is, the horse is not profitable
because it is incapable of doing anything besides racing. The suite of racing traits has
rendered the animal useless for all other work. So, my questions to eugenicists of the
second type (above) are, (1) what traits are you going to breed humans for?, (2) who gets
to decide that? and (3) How do you know that breeding for these traits will not obliterate
other traits essential for life? To use the Jews as an example of successful eugenics is
preposterous. Jews have grossly disproportionate incidences of genetic abnormalities,
diseases and mental illness.
Reply

OneTrackback
By RE: Heretical Thoughts on Abortion A Pro-Life Position | Traditionalist Youth Network

By RE: Heretical Thoughts on Abortion A Pro-Life Position | Traditionalist Youth Network

on March 23, 2015 at 3:51 pm

PostaComment
Your email is never published nor shared.

Comments are moderated. Ifyoudon'tseeyourcomment,pleasebepatient. If approved, it

will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.

Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Comment

YoumayusetheseHTMLtagsandattributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym

title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite="">
<strike> <strong>
Post Comment

Replies to my comments

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Copyright 2015 Counter-Currents Publishing, Ltd.