Author Topic: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest  (Read 20300 times)


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2474
Re: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest
« Reply #260 on: December 19, 2019, 06:22:28 PM »
Abortion is a funny thing. Fundamentally I think its reprehensible. Its arrogant, and its selfish. But, when you look at the numbers, the majority of abortions, strictly on a statistical basis involve bringing more people into the world that ultimately turn out to be people we dont need more of. Every day we are reminded of this. Someone going for an abortion is more than likely irresponsible. Theyre also most likely going to be a deadbeat parent. They also likely dont have the means to provide for their offspring. They are just losers.

At the core, I still say I am against abortions. Its not fair the the future child. But the practical argument is its not fair to society so let the idiots off themselves or their future offspring. Its a problems when, spin a wheel and pick a crime committed by a minor, and I can more often than not, guess what child looks like, and what type of home they come from. We need less of those. The Tessa Majors murder...3 Jewish kids wearing sweater vests, moccasins, and yarmulkes, from a $350K home with a mom and a dad right?

Liberalism has eroded family values. Its all an equation and the ugliness of the sausage is just because the ingredients continue to get worse. I say, less ingredients!
Are you suggesting some kind of eugenic control?
What I am saying is that Ive largely been a pro life advocate my entire life. And the debate is almost always polarizing and passionate on both ends. But at the same time, as I get older, and at least I think wiser, its impossible not to notice whats going on in the world. Another week goes by and another killing of young girl by a bunch of savage animals. Its everywhere. People cant take the subways without being slashed by loitering teen gangbangers. Women are being assaulted in broad daylight walking around in Queens. These people, in these areas, make up a large population of the abortion crowd, demographically speaking. So am I really making a wise decision, supporting a policy, thats end result, is laying the foundation for more of these types of people? Genetically hardwired to be prone to certain behaviors or tendencies? Guaranteed to be raised in an environment that harbors and condones these types of behaviors? So on the surface, no. Not a good idea. And philosophically, if this is what they want to do...I guess let them. Especially if the benefit is a net positive.
So you are describing a soft form (permissive not coercive) of negative eugenics..

This was also quite ‘popular’ in another drifting period that shared great resemblance to present times, with ‘natural’ tendencies to disdain what is different or foreign and with a tendency to attribute the ‘degeneration’ to failing institutions. The idea is (and was) to recognize poor contributors to the genetic pool and advocate constraints on fertility of the unfit (or the “feebleminded”). This discussion is worth having here (perhaps) because consequences may eventually impact portfolios.

The Eugenics movements came in many strands and included a small component aiming to encourage hard-working families through some kind of family allowance or redistribution but eugenic abortions and selective sterilizations became the natural outcomes of Galton’s rationalization that the solution to social problems were neither social reform nor charity but, as you suggest, selective breeding..

Fortunately, the movement lost its populist momentum in the 30s but gained some traction elsewhere through various camps, concentrated experiments, mass movements and a Final Solution. So, I’m glad the US rejected the fake-news pseudoscience, changed axis and pivoted to adapt to the reality that social problems are not only and primarily a manifestation of individual inadequacies. Too bad it required a Great Depression and a World War to achieve this and maybe the drift had been allowed to go too far. And these things tend to come in cycles. You may already know that the guy who figured the permanently high plateau in stocks, Irving Fisher, was an ardent eugenics fan.

If interested, you may want to read about Carrie Buck’s trial. I guess she would fit your definition of one of them. I also guess she could be labeled a “loser” since she lost her trial before it actually began.

In a way, the idea behind eugenics is to drain the swamp. What I find worrisome (opinion) is that many swing voters who supported the notion of draining the swamp the last time around have not realized that, in fact, they are the targeted swamp. Given the Commander-in-Chief’s style, these ideas are again in vogue and some feel disinhibited and are not shy to disseminate false ideas. Perhaps this is not the place to argue but voices remain largely unheard, actions remain largely unseen and apathy should be shaken off long before there is nowhere to hide.

I assume that you can come around to see another point of view but I may be mistaken.