The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Opposition to Third Trimester Abortions
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Third trimester abortions are really unpopular. Support for an unconditional legal ban on all abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, by selected demographic characteristics with “unsure” responses–constituting 12.5% of the total–excluded:

Women present a bigger threat to a woman’s right to choose than men do. Who knew? Never underestimate The Patriarchy’s capacity for instilling false consciousness in the fairer sex! No wonder the figurative fangs come out when this hot button is pushed.

I do not doubt the sincerity of Alabamans who want to go whole hog, but for a cynical electoral play, Republican pols would be well served to make the abortion absolutists who control virtually every congressperson with a (D) next to his or her name defend aborting fetuses past the point of viability outside the womb. Opposition to the practice is the majority position among every single demographic group considered.

Parenthetically, in the course of researching this post I came across the following from a site called Romper (that gets a bit more traffic than UR at the moment, though the gap is closing). Some people are better suited for quant writing than others:

According to The New York Times, three states ban abortions in the third trimester, after 28 weeks gestation. They include Iowa, Texas, and Virginia. The Guttmacher Institute also notes that in 24 states, late-term abortions are allowed to preserve the life and health of the mother, but more disturbingly, that 16 states ban late-term abortions entirely — the only exception being to save the life and physical health of the mother. Three states — Idaho, Michigan, and Rhode Island — have banned late-term abortions except those that would save the life of the mother and say nothing of physical health.

On account of the writer’s ambiguity it is possible to reasonably deduce that 16, 19, 22, or some higher number of states restrict late-term abortions to some degree. We are told that there are 24 states that allow late-term abortions with qualifications but are left unclear about the number of states, if any, that permit late-term abortions without qualifications. Additionally, using an unqualified “entirely” and then immediately following it with an explanation about exceptions is inexplicably bad writing.

 
Hide 80 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Tusk says:

    A woman should clearly have the capacity to realise before the third tremester whether she wants to keep the baby or not. It seems fundementally wrong to enable the freedom to fully develop a viable child and then abort it because they changed their mind (excluding a risk to the mothers health/safety). To me it seems it is the denial of agency at work again where women are not expected to be able to make any permanent decisions within a set time frame. Also interesting to note lgbt individuals being the lowest supporting group, not only can they not conceive their own children but are actively in support of letting others terminate theirs. Jealousy perhaps?

  2. res says:

    Additionally, using an unqualified “entirely” and then immediately following it with an explanation about exceptions is inexplicably bad writing.

    Unless you are trying to be deceitful?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  3. Holy eff man, did you need to ruin our evening with that ghastly closeup of RBGhost? I almost got a heart attack. Btw if you want to see something truly creepy, look up Clement Freud, known pedophile and nephew of Sigmund Freud. I have yet to see a man with a scarier face.

  4. Twinkie says:

    Women present a bigger threat to a woman’s right to choose than men do. Who knew?

    If you had been involved with the pro-life movement as I have, you’ve known about this a very long time.

    Women with children are particularly opposed to abortions. That first birth, in particular, changes everything even for previously die-hard pro-abortion women, let alone the casual pro-abortion supporters. I know a young mom in the movement, for example, who used to be a ferociously pro-abortion foot soldier. She used to counter-picket at abortion clinics, march for abortion rights, etc. She also had a couple of abortions (got pregnant by boyfriends who didn’t want children).

    She told my wife and me that, after she married and gave birth to her first baby, she wept for hours upon seeing her newborn, because she had realized what she had done with her abortions. She was full of both guilt for her own choices in the matter and anger for having been lied to by the abortion defenders.

    That woman and her husband are extremely, militantly pro-life.

    And one of the most passionate and articulate pro-lifers I know is a former female nurse for an abortionist. I don’t even want to share her stories.

  5. It’s a shame there’s not information for single women, white democrat women and Jews

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  6. A 3 item poll would shed much light: “Are you pro ‘choice’?” “Are you pro ‘life’?” “Do you advocate a world government that everywhere enforces your preference on all locales?”

    I suspect you’ll find a lot more of the “pro-life” folks going with local self-determination than the “pro-choice” folks. This belies the choice of the word “choice” to describe them.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  7. eah says:

    …but more disturbingly, that 16 states ban late-term abortions entirely — the only exception being to save the life and physical health of the mother.

    Forget about her writing ability (or lack of it) — all you need to know about this bitch is that she finds it disturbing late-term abortions are banned — personally I find such abortion absolutism extremely disturbing.

    Women present a bigger threat to a woman’s right to choose than men do.

    On the other hand this is mildly heartening.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  8. G. Poulin says:

    In a totalitarian state such as ours, the views of majorities don’t matter the least little bit. We have a ruling class. Sooner or later, it always gets what it wants.

  9. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:

    Anyone who wants to get a 3rd trimester abortion shouldn’t be propagating his/her genes in the first place.

    I support abortion with no restrictions. It’s the only eugenic policy the liberals have ever supported. Restrictions on abortion only result in idiocracy, mostly because the highest IQ women and men are either abstinent, or use condoms/birth control perfectly.

    The smart young folk at MIT are mostly virgins. The ones who are not, are rigorously practicing safe sex. Meanwhile, the 18-24 year olds who were too dumb to go to community college are popping out kids left and right.

    I think that filicide should be illegal on the books but we should turn a blind eye to it in real life. Anyone who is violent enough to kill their baby or child shouldn’t be propagating her/his genes in the first place.

  10. LGBT are both least supportive and have the least skin in the game.

  11. Meh, I find any abortions, particularly Third Trimester abortions, morally reprehensible, even criminal, but to be pragmatic about it:

    1) Persons who would snuff a viable foetus would likely be lousy parents who would rear a child into being a lousy human; and

    2) Like the vast majority of abortions in the US, the people getting them are politically the people we should not want to reproduce (Though this point might be redundant of #1).

    To make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs; to restore the republic, you might have to destroy a few million fertilised eggs, perhaps even up to voting age.

  12. @Tusk

    A woman should clearly have the capacity to realise before the third tremester whether she wants to keep the baby or not.

    Given the vagaries of pregnancy, a woman may have no idea exactly what she’s carrying until the third trimester.

    It seems fundementally wrong to enable the freedom to fully develop a viable child

    Down syndrome, cleft face and spina bifida are “fully viable”, but none is anything you want.  And let’s note Potter syndrome, anencephaly and other malformations which are fatal soon after birth if not before.

    The thing I find incomprehensible is that “pro-life” mostly has the position that anencephalics are “alive” rather than born brain-dead.  They won’t even consider using anencephalics as organ donors for infants born with e.g. heart and liver malformations.  They demand that they be allowed to die of heart/circulatory failure first, which destroys the organs.  This guarantees that other infants who could have been saved wind up dead too.

    This entire issue is much ado about nothing, moral posturing rather than simply being adults and making the hard decisions that fall to those who are the only ones capable of making them.  Sometimes, due to circumstances completely beyond human control, a third-trimester abortion is going to be the right thing to do.  So be it.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @animalogic
  13. LondonBob says:
    @Tusk

    Always found the Islamic approach interesting. In Islam abortion is forbidden after the fourth month after the foetus is seen as being a human life with a soul.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion

    The Islamic rulings on this constitute a good basis on which laws could be based.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
  14. I’ve very pro-life. I’ve been all my life.

    As of late, however, I’m rethinking the way I carry out this position. For several reasons:

    1. The pro-life brethren do not actually believe it is murder.
    2. It is really the best male-rights win we’ve ever had.
    3. Why should I care if progressive women murder their offspring?
    4. If conservatives have kids and progresses murder theirs, seems like a win to me.

    Some more details:
    If the pro-life people who said they think it is murder acted or behaved like it actually was, then there would be no abortion doctors alive. No one would raise an eyebrow preventing someone slaughtering a bus full of kindergartners by shooting them dead. Yet, for some reason, if you believe it is murder, killing an abortion doctor is off limits and, more then likely, your “brethren” will turn you in if you talk about it or make plans to do it.

    This is the best men’s right ever. A decent percentage of abortions are the men in the woman’s life telling her either she aborts or the guy will leave them. Or if it is a parent forcing the abortion, they’ll cut off any funding for her or kick her out of the house. While sometimes it is the mom of the woman making such threats, the father is there too – and knows he’s going to be the one supporting the grandkid while the daughter “figures out life”. Having worked with pro-life groups, this is a recurring story I hear. It wasn’t her choice, but she was coerced by the men in her life. So the guy is off the hook to “do the right thing” or “make an honest woman out of her” and is just “renting” her privates for his use while he’s there. (or the dad not having to fork out cash to support preggo daughter)

    Lastly, they kill off their kids, we have more kids then they do. Its a numbers game. Less gender confused mentally disabled human incapable of reasoned thought and debate seems like a win-win for the country. Seriously, the progressives murdering their babies just prevents children from living with an abusive mentally deficient adult anyway.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  15. Goodness me oh my,

    all conceived human beings (starting at conception) are viable given the right environment, unless they collapse on their own.

    I have no qualms, no doubts and no questions calling the act of taking the life of a child from conception forward — an act of murder.

    caveat: save in those rare cases when a mother’s life is at stake. But given that a woman’s life is always at stake during pregnancy and child birth that is not saying much. The more the science the more the confirmation that a human being is in play long before the gamesmanship of ‘simestering’ life.

    I am confident that most US citizens object to the idea of killing children in the womb at any stage. And if they did a smidge of homework on the matter would be dismayed by the SC decisions to condone the sacrifice of children in the womb.

    And it is ironic that millenia upon millennia of instilling a nurture seems to have been bred out of women entirely who advocate, continence and applaud the murder of children —

    in or out of the womb.

  16. “the only exception being to save the life and physical health of the mother.”

    I’m sorry, but with present day advances in medicine this seems like bullshit. Notice how there is never a specific explanation of what exactly threatens the “life and health” of the mother. Breach or inverted fetuses can be delivered via Caesarean. Really, I have racked my brain and cannot think of a situation where suddenly terminating the life of a full term fetus all of a sudden saves the life of the mother. It still has to be delivered, dead or alive.
    Anecdotally, my second daughter was delivered via emergency Caesarean. The cord was wrapped around her neck and she was turned partially, and the nurse was basically elbow deep trying to straighten her out before they realized the cord was prevented her from doing so. This seems like a situation where both my wife and daughter’s lives were in danger, but about 10 minutes and an a second epidural later, I watched the doctor reach into my wife’s abdomen and take out my daughter.
    The point of course is that there is pretty much no sane reason at all to perform a late term abortion.

    I seem to keep asking for variances in these polls, but I would like to see this chart again broken down by ethnicity, race, and religion.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  17. @Twinkie

    Abortion is a ghastly enterprise.

    If there is a more awesome emotional experience than holding your newborn in your arms, I don’t know what it is. I get misty-eyed recalling it.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @anon
  18. @Tusk

    More charitably than jealousy, it may just be the lack of a nurturing instinct and a corresponding dislike of children.

  19. White democrats really will be the downfall of this country. Good thing they’re a dying breed.

  20. @Anonymous

    I agree that it’s pretty straightforward among the upper crust. Moving down through the middle and working classes, though, it’s not so clear. Abortion probably ‘hits’ the working class hardest–harder than it does the underclass. This is–in a very small nutshell–the crux of Steve Sailer’s position in his famous back-and-forth with Levitt, the Freakonomics guy, from almost twenty years ago.

    If I put my Objectivist glasses on, your argument makes sense. Otoh, I don’t want to live in a society that turns a blind eye to the abuse of children.

  21. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    I think we should be vigilant and watch for signs of non-lethal child abuse.

    But not for human rights, or kindness towards children.

    As you probably know, there are only a few non-genetic things that can permanently help or hinder your life outcome. Family structure is one, material deprivation is another (things like malnutrition, tropical diseases, lack of doctors, etc). Childhood abuse is also one.

    If we look at it from a purely society point of view, non-lethal child abuse is horrible, because it creates broken adults from children that might not have otherwise become broken. Abused kids who survive to adulthood drop out of high school, have kids without marriage, have trouble finding a stable job, live off welfare, use drugs, and often end up physically abusing other people themselves. But lethal child abuse is literally ending problems because you’re ending the bloodline of a violent person who might be a psycho and/or mentally ill.

  22. Twinkie says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Abortion is a ghastly enterprise.

    It’s also lucrative for abortionists. It’s almost humorous how some on the left go after “rich,” “greedy” doctors, but they never go after abortionists, who, despite being on the low end of the cognitive profile among doctors, often make better money than specialists.

    If there is a more awesome emotional experience than holding your newborn in your arms, I don’t know what it is. I get misty-eyed recalling it.

    Spoken like a loving father.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @anon
  23. @Kent Nationalist

    Single women — 67.9%
    White Democrat women — 56.7%
    Jews — 49.2% (sample size is 0nly 130)

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
  24. Twinkie says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Objectivist

    Somethings are not worth the (material) benefits. There is good and evil. Some WNs seem to cheer abortion, because it kills black babies. I find that horrendous, and I’m not exactly “pro-black.”

    • Replies: @anon
  25. @Twinkie

    Many mothers are pro-choice on abortion and, at the same time, pro womb privilege in terms of believing that moms should be above firing when taking off mornings, afternoons, days and weeks from work, in addition to PTO & pregnancy leave. They are pro-choice on abortion, but when the mom makes the choice to have a kid, she should be above discrimination, able to hire and retain 98 — 100% moms in the many voted-best-for-moms office jobs.

    When single women don’t abort, most pro-choice women believe they should be paid for it by Uncle Sam if they work part time, staying under the earned-income limits for programs that provide reduced-cost rent, free EBT food, monthly cash assistance, free electricity and up to $6,431 in refundable child tax credit cash for the moms to spend on anything they want, including beach trips with boyfriends.

    Never mind that this drives wages down to non-livable levels for all of the women who lack spousal income or access to this pay from government for womb-productive sex. The welfare rigging of the labor market provides employers with a low-cost workforce that needs to make low wages, and it has increased exponentially since the anti-abortion movement gained steam.

    While womb-productivity-based welfare rigging has reduced quality of life tremendously for many women, it has not resulted in increased birth rates in some groups, namely the former, American, white middle class. It hasn’t increased birth rates for Blacks, either. A lot of that pay-per-birth welfare money goes to womb-prolific noncitizens.

    Another quality-of-life issue arises in some rare cases, as noted in a congressional hearing in the Nineties, when Satcher was under consideration for Surgeon General. Senator Frist, an MD, backed him up in saying that it is possible for a woman to lose her future fertility, with lots of other excruciating physical damage, if she gives birth to a baby in certain late-term circumstances.

    The Surgeon General nominee described a horrible, late-term abortion that he performed, where a woman’s bladder would have been destroyed to birth a baby that would have been very, very mentally impaired if he had not performed the procedure.

    People say they would not do it, but you have to wonder, especially given the almost universally selfish-cubed behavior on display everywhere in the USA———-very much including the many cutthroat-as-h*** voted-best-for-moms workplaces. I don’t think many of them would be willing to make the sacrifice if it was them. Show-off baby pageantry and sacrificing your bladder are two different matters.

    That might fall under the “health-of-the-mother” exclusion.

    Most people who don’t vote based on the abortion issue one way or the other, but who can see some of the of anti-abortion rationale, would regard that type of thing as just too extreme, like denying women choice in cases of rape or incest. It’s just too extreme.

    They shouldn’t be putting medical professionals in those situations, either. The woman’s parents and spouse would likely be pressuring them heavily to put the woman’s health first. They’re in an impossible situation in such cases. This is an issue that requires input from real medical experts, not just political rhetoric, religious or moral arguments. A few individuals face different circumstances, and individuals are supposed to have liberties in this country.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  26. @MikeatMikedotMike

    “life and health” is a loaded phrase, intended to deflect questions about what “health” means into a dichotomous choice about who survives: Woman or fetus.

  27. @James Bowery

    Yes. That obscure provision called the Tenth Amendment would seem to relegate the matter to the people of each of the fifty States.

    The federal government lacks constitutional authority to intervene or legislate either way on the legality of killing pre-born human beings through induced abortion.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  28. You want women not to have abortions, then pay for the children.

    It works. Proven Scientific Fact.

    Never occurred to you, of course. Because it doesn’t fit with your libertarian idiocy.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    , @anon
    , @Mr Puroik
  29. @Endgame Napoleon

    Sweden has the answer. But you people don’t know where Sweden is. From your bubble in there.

  30. @Mr. Rational

    ‘… Sometimes, due to circumstances completely beyond human control, a third-trimester abortion is going to be the right thing to do…’

    …and sometimes, it’ll just be a matter of Peggy Sue having changed her mind yet again.

    So be it?

  31. Jay Fink says:
    @LondonBob

    Liberals are open to Sharia law, they just don’t know what’s in it. An abortion law like that would horrify many of them.

  32. Jay Fink says:
    @obwandiyag

    I differ from many of today’s conservatives in that the paying part of it is what I find most objectionable. I’m not a fan of abortion but if a woman plans on having Medicaid pay for the birth and then go on welfare, food stamps, WIC, Section 8 and get generous child tax credits I would rather she abort. I would also prefer she adopts than abort. I would provide free birth control to low income women to help lower the chance they get pregnant in the first place.

    • Replies: @animalogic
    , @Mr. Rational
  33. anon[357] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    > kills black babies. I find that horrendous

    Enjoy your enrichment.

  34. anon[357] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    It’s almost humorous how some on the Right go after “lucrative” doctors. Wouldn’t want to be like the Left who go after “rich,” “greedy” doctors. 🙂

  35. anon[357] • Disclaimer says:
    @obwandiyag

    > then pay for the children

    Whitey already is financially cuckolding for darkie spawn.

    Federal Budget Contribution, 2014

    Whites: +$2,795 per capita surplus
    Hispanics: -$7,700 per capita deficit
    Blacks: -$10,016 per capita deficit

    http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/11/fiscal-impact-of-whites-blacks-and-hispanics/

  36. anon[357] • Disclaimer says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Then are you misty eyed enough to toss this book out of your house? Muh feelz.

    Give them, LORD–What should you give? Give them a womb that miscarries…(Hosea 9:14)

    If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow… (Exodus 21:22)

    Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:3)

    Just a few of the nuggets from EvilBible’s God is not Pro-life. http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/god-is-not-pro-life/

  37. @Anonymous

    Interesting view point, re propagating the children of people stupid enough to want a late term abortion. Food for thought.

  38. @Mr. Rational

    “Sometimes, due to circumstances completely beyond human control, a third-trimester abortion is going to be the right thing to do. So be it.”
    Agreed.
    Third term abortion suggests some degree of negligence or immaturity to me, so under normal circumstances I’m not in favour. Morally questionable at best. But, it’s also morally questionable to bring inevitable suffering into the world also….

  39. @Twinkie

    Women with children are particularly opposed to abortions. That first birth, in particular, changes everything even for previously die-hard pro-abortion women, let alone the casual pro-abortion supporters.

    If life experience (or hormone levels?) can change social views so much many social views aren’t even very meaningful.

    Well, I’m pro-abortion because I know that in this harsh universe without genetic engineering & transhumanism some form of human-killing will happen sooner or later. Ancient humans had this mechanism too and it was called “murder”, “infanticide” and “warfare”. We can’t get rid of it.

  40. @Jay Fink

    .” I would provide free birth control to low income women to help lower the chance they get pregnant in the first place.”
    Oh no! That’s — that’s socialism.

  41. @Jay Fink

    I would provide free birth control to low income women to help lower the chance they get pregnant in the first place.

    You’re betting way too much on the planning ability of people with very high time preference.

    Were it up to me, I’d make any kind of assistance contingent on long-term contraception use by all females of child-bearing age in the household receiving it, and loss of benefits if they made any babies.  I’d also put juvenile felons in custody until age 21, with the option to be paroled at 18 if and only if they accept sterilization.  I’d give all unemployables coming out of welfare households a fat cash bonus and a 10-year stipend for taking sterilization at age 18.

    I don’t know just how much such measures would cull the ranks of the criminal and unemployable, but I suspect it would be huge.  High time preference is anti-civilization and we should make it anti-reproduction.

  42. Mr Puroik says:

    Supporters of late-term abortion are, usually, a bizarre and angry lot in my experience. They rarely have kids themselves, and if they do, they’re usually shitty, lazy parents who put their kids in daycare and barely interact with them but then virtue signal about how woke and awesome they are because they don’t spank their kids (apparently corporal punishment mixed with love and care is infintely worse than total indifference and leaving their kids to get picked apart by shitty, individualistic bourgeois society). There’s a very strong correlation among the US states between pro-life views and fertility as well as social class. The most pro-life state in almost every poll since the 80s has been none other than the proletarian heartland of West Virginia (even back in the old days when it voted Democrat for president, it’s always been an epicenter of the pro-life movement, and has one of the lowest abortion rates in the western world). On the contrary, it’s the wealthy, overeducated crowd who don’t have kids themselves that get ‘triggered’ over the slightest attempt to curb Roe. “Family values” has become a buzzword for literally-Hitler evil Trumpy racist hate to these guys for a reason: they are anti-family, both personally and politically, and anti-values and tradition with a passion. After all, as the technocrats love reminding us, the day is coming soon when these horrid cis, white concepts like ‘family’, ‘marriage’ and ‘solidarity with your fellow human beings’ will be obsolete in favor of the cyberpunk dystopia they call “progress”

  43. Mr Puroik says:
    @obwandiyag

    if both of our political views were flipped, I would accuse you of being a Russian troll trying to sow division and discord in this age where we need to all stand together and fight fascism or whatever. As it is, I will just assume (based on the fact that you have oodles of comments on this site that you apparently hate) that you’re unemployed and exceptional.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  44. @Mr. Rational

    I strongly agree. That’s a great idea. Let’s also sterilize everyone with IQ below a certain threshold.

  45. iffen says:
    @EastKekistani

    Let’s also sterilize everyone with IQ below a certain threshold.

    Can we get your score so we will know where to place the threshold?

    • LOL: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Twinkie
  46. Well, I’m kind of torn on the issue of abortion.

    I think it’s really a balancing act.

    One the one hand, blacks and Hispanics have abortions at a much higher rate than do whites. It gets rid of future welfare leeches and criminals. So this is one reason why keeping it legal may be a good thing, especially in a state like Alabama.

    On the other hand, it’s hard to calculate how much the *idea* of abortion has damaged the psyche of the white, feminist young women. I know so many young white women (just about all of them outside Church, in fact) who simply say “well if I ever get pregnant I’m just gonna have an abortion”. This kind of mentality is highly damaging to the whites’ fertility, even if no babies are actually being aborted. It gives women the *feeling* of freedom, and the ability to whore around. They don’t need to settle down to have sex, they can just take some d*ck every weekend, and if they get pregnant once or thrice, Oops, just going to the “clinic” where I will receive my free abortion, courtesy of the taxpayers of Ontario. Would I be having casual sex with an ex girlfriend if abortion was illegal? Quite frankly, probably not.

    Whites have the ability to comprehend abstract concepts like that. So I feel abortion being illegal would really cause a cultural shift among white women, where they would no longer have that safety net during their “having fun” years.

    Abortion being legal is good for the 2% of white men, who are pumping and dumping the 75% of white women constantly. For the other 98%, illegal abortion is a good thing as white women would be forced to get into monogamous relationships to have sex.

    So, on the surface it seems as if legal abortion is good for the white race. Upon closer inspection, it’s hard to tell. Will be interesting to crunch the numbers in a few years once the abortion laws have “hopefully” taken effect.

    I’d say the ideal situation is to “ban” abortion, but “look the other way” as certain “charities” like Planned Parenthood provided abortions in the inner city…

    ——————————————————————————————————————–

    Finally, abortion is humane when it comes to retarded fetuses. I believe mentally or physically retarded babies should be aborted at any stage in the pregnancy. It’s humane for the parents and for the fetus. So restricting abortion is bad for this, too.

    Either way, it’s fun to see the libs melting down over this.

  47. @EastKekistani

    I’m all for offering the low-IQ a chance to trade their fertility for money, but the only way I’d make it mandatory is in the case of punishment for a crime.  However, since criminals tend to be dumb (and have high time preference), I think that would all work out.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
  48. @EastKekistani

    What’s the cutoff? Maybe you’re just below. MENSA only (ok, well in that case you’d be far below).

    I prefer a race-based system. Non-whites cannot get citizenship, abolish anchor babies, end welfare for non whites and give white people affirmative action for all ranges of jobs. Wouldn’t see any more aliens at that point.

  49. @Mr Puroik

    I don’t have to analyze you like you analyze me. I know you’re just a complete idiot. Analysis done.

    • Troll: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  50. Twinkie says:
    @iffen

    Can we get your score so we will know where to place the threshold?

    What happens if his is higher than yours?

    • Replies: @iffen
  51. @Audacious Epigone

    Isn’t abortion an upper class thing? Feel like even among blacks the upper class would be more pro-abortion

    I know one of pro-natalism arguments is giving away money to mothers i.e like Russia and Hungary are trying, which thats to give incentive to women to have that third child instead of believing the family financial interest is in less children

  52. @Mr. Rational

    Whites tend to have much more negative feelings towards blacks than other racial groups, even at a young age, hence liberals avoiding them like gentrified Wisconsin 1920s or Phili 2019. Studies even show a 10% rise in local black population erased three-years of post-secondary education liberalizing effects on race relations

    And that’s without considering Ferguson or Maryland rioting effect. Which even the most left of whites believe blacks to be predisposed for violence

    So the question i have to ask are

    Would it not be advantageous for the GOP to have more blacks, promote YIMBY housing, in order to pressure more whites to the white party?

    If the child was born, would it cause the parents to get married? This would be a huge boom for the GOP, particularly if the marriage vote effect takes place.

    I’d imagine the possible number isn’t that high though, but still.

  53. @obwandiyag

    Shades of Rachel Jeantel saying “that’s really retarded.”  As Steve Sailer noted at the time, that’s what 80 IQ looks like.  Ol’ Windy Bag is giving us a review lesson.

  54. @Mr. Rational

    Team eugenics and child raising here

    Marriage/parenthood seems to be very beneficial to overall health and life happiness, especially fatherhood, and not dieing alone at 75 full of regret and despair like most millennials will is a pretty nice thing

    We should just really just double down on engineering designer babies. Eliminate unintelligence without stripping away the beauty of parenthood. Also i feel like sterilizing the unintelligent going to lead to too many riots. Especially since who it’ll primarily target.

    Even with sterilisation can we expect high IQ individuals to get married to similar high IQ individuals and if they do/don’t can we expect to see an IQ shrink in those children and grandchildren? I believe Steve Sailer addressed this on Twitter, and i believe the answer was yes we’ll see a long term inability to maintain high IQs

    Which means to me the IQ problem can only be addressed through strict genetic engineering.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  55. That said

    States that have introduced abortion bans and race of mothers who get abortion

    Mississippi – 78% black, 20% white
    Georgia – 66% Black, 28% White
    Louisiana – 62% black, 30% white
    Alabama – 60% black, 36% white
    Missouri – 49% White, 44% black
    Ohio – 52% white, 42% black
    Kentucky – NR
    Texas – NR

    And also Florida, New York City, Massachusetts abortion rates are so high even my left-Europeans friends are disgusted by its over usage.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  56. @Oblivionrecurs

    I’d try answering, but I can’t quite figure out what your question is.

    On the issue of force-integrating housing, though, that initiative would have to come from the SJWs so that the White Party could push back against it.  The last thing SWPLs want is for their “good school” to become another cesspit of race war that’s actively dangerous to their children (see the battle over school assignments in NYC).  They’ve paid good money for a house away from that stuff.  If voting R is the one thing they can do to keep their home equity from vanishing under a tsunami of color I’m sure a lot will make anti-racist noises in public, but in the privacy of the voting booth they’ll hold their nose and do it.

  57. @Oblivionrecurs

    i feel like sterilizing the unintelligent going to lead to too many riots.

    So don’t force them.  PAY them.  When the guy who got his vas tied is suddenly taking home the best-looking ho from the strip club, and the girl who went for endometrial ablation not only has no “feminine hygiene” issues for the rest of her life but has the best weave and nails in her circle, nobody’s going to riot.  They’re going to line up to be next!

    the IQ problem can only be addressed through strict genetic engineering.

    Honestly, we don’t know how yet.  We do know how to breed selectively.  Our problem is that we’ve been selecting wrong for the last century or so.

  58. iffen says:
    @Twinkie

    What happens if his is higher than yours?

    I will quit my current job, change my name, work two weeks on a commercial farm and become the world famous agronomist that ends the threat of hunger for all eternity in the known universe.

  59. @Oblivionrecurs

    Half or more of abortions are administered to women below the poverty line.

  60. @Oblivionrecurs

    “Whites tend to have much more negative feelings towards blacks than other racial groups, ”

    Not really remarkable because all racial groups have more negative feelings towards blacks than other racial groups.

    To answer your first question, there is no evidence I have seen that suggests increasing the number of blacks in any circumstance ends in a positive result.

  61. “Most people who don’t vote based on the abortion issue one way or the other, but who can see some of the of anti-abortion rationale, would regard that type of thing as just too extreme, like denying women choice in cases of rape or incest. It’s just too extreme.”

    There is silliness and then there is absurdity.

    Giving birth is a risk. Not a single comment you make in any manner justifies the killing children in the womb in the general. Each contend you advance about some rare circumstance, even I bought it does not serve as truth so as to justify murdering children on the womb.

    There’s the silliest endgame, “too extreme” it’s flipping the matter on it head and — protecting the life of children is somehow more extreme than entering a woman;s womb with chemicals and knives slicing up or poisoning a child —-

    I would take you seriously if you noted that the circumstances ought to be exceptions. But you don’t even have the good faith to do that instead you make some false about argument about extremes. It is disengenuous and it is a wholesale lie.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  62. “You want women not to have abortions, then pay for the children.

    It works. Proven Scientific Fact.”

    No. The proven fact is that children costs money and it’s helpful to have money to do so.

    Here’s a proven fact,

    Don’t want children, refrain from engaging behaviors that prevent the same.

    1. exercise some self control

    2. can’t do that there’s alsways self gratification

    3. can’t handle that use prevention

    4. be responsible for your behavior of choice and the consequences

    It’s like, not getting drunk — there’s an easy solution, don’t drink.

    Can’t afford children — don’t get pregnant.

    Liberals are forever demanding someone else pay for their pleasure seeking consequences.

    Good grief. It’s very simple, remove the escape clause of murdering children in the womb and people will be more responsible for their choices.

    And in those rare cases of rape, certainly we as a community should care for those children and the mother.

  63. @Mr. Rational

    Project Prevention does something akin to this, paying drug-addicted women to use long-term birth control measures like Depo Provera.

    If it is voluntary, the anti-civilizational types have to resort to braying about how it is “exploitative”, etc. But having high time preference is what makes it so attractive to the people who’d be interested in taking advantage of it. Why is it wrong to give everyone want they prefer and make society a better place to boot?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  64. @Oblivionrecurs

    According to the GSS, dysgenic fertility among Hispanics has been worse and among blacks has been much worse than among whites. I wonder how abortion factors into that (ie a pregnant 20 yo black woman from a middle/upper class household gets an abortion while one from the underclass does not).

    From a consequentialist perspective, the welfare state really complicates things. Abortion would be more clearly ‘eugenic’ without it. With it, though, it’s not so clear.

  65. @Oblivionrecurs

    Where are you sourcing that from? I’m interested. Very interested.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
  66. @MikeatMikedotMike

    We know who hasn’t put a sportsball team together recently!

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
  67. @EliteCommInc.

    If the fetus is granted humanity, health of the mother doesn’t really even make sense as a moral argument unless it is a question of health of both the mother and the baby. It’s just the mother, then the moral question is no different than asking if a mother should be able to kill her toddler to save herself.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    , @Logan
  68. @Audacious Epigone

    If it is voluntary, the anti-civilizational types have to resort to braying about how it is “exploitative”, etc.

    Strangely, those anti-civilizational types don’t have a problem with those same women having abortions.  Preventing abortions bad, abortions good.  (Hmmm.  Perhaps there IS something to the claims of the anti-abortion crowd that there is an occult agenda at work here.)

    But having high time preference is what makes it so attractive to the people who’d be interested in taking advantage of it.

    It works to the disadvantage of those who get their money and authority off masses of people who don’t think about tomorrow.  Democratic pols, welfare bureaucrats, prison operators:  all stand to lose if we have fewer dumb, violent, unemployable people.

    Why is it wrong to give everyone want they prefer and make society a better place to boot?

    When your livelihood and power depends on human misery, you prefer more of it to less of it.  This suggests that they also have high time preference, because they do not think ahead to consider what happens to them when the overloaded system collapses.  Either that, or they’re so overloaded by their emphasis on care/harm that they cannot see how they are steering everything towards disaster.  (And disaster it is:  it is written in the stars that such things are utter folly, but they can’t see it.  The Gods of the Copybook Headings will not be denied.)

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  69. @Audacious Epigone

    The entire philosophical discussion of personhood was well outside the scope of the SC mandate. The legal tradition in the US was that a “woman with child” was so set at conception.

    I have no issues with the legal arguments to establish personhood at conception, but in my view the question is irrelevant. What I have enjoyed is watching liberals squirm as the science continues to confirm that human existence can be verified at much earlier stages in a child’s development.

    It’s pretty clear that a human being starts his or her life at conception and develops that point forward.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
  70. Logan says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    No human is ever morally justified in killing an innocent to save himself. Killing someone is self-defense is an entirely different moral questions.

    There are, however, situations in which the choice is not between one or the other person dying, it’s between one dying or two. Notably situations such as ectopic pregnancy. That baby is not going to survive till birth, and failure to perform an abortion means the mother will likely die too.

    It seems reasonably obvious that it’s better for one person to die than two.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  71. @Audacious Epigone

    It might be needed to win over the educated white vote

    “This research focuses on whites’ reactions to the racial composition of the local population. Multilevel modeling is applied to a micro/macro data file that links 1990 General Social Survey responses to census information about respondents’ localities. On summary scales representing traditional prejudice, opposition to race-targeting, and policy-related beliefs, white negativity swells as the local black population share expands. Among non-Southern whites, a 10-point rise in the local percentage of blacks brings an increase in traditional prejudice greater than the decrease in prejudice that comes with three additional years of education. South/non-South differences in whites’ views about blacks are generally reduced to about one-half of their original size and fall short of statistical significance when local racial composition is controlled. Interestingly, concentrations of local Asian American and Latino populations do not engender white antipathy toward these groups. If whites’ reactions to the presence of blacks is a threat response, the specific dynamics of this threat await description.”

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/246396162_How_White_Attitudes_Vary_With_The_Racial_Composition_of_Local_Populations_Numbers_Count

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  72. @MikeatMikedotMike

    Open socialists were getting elected all over the lily-white midwest and that suddenly stopped when black people showed up. Sewer socialism in Milwaukee giving way to ruby-red Waukesha.

    Worth remembering that the Southern racial system, in fact, allowed for a great deal of personal contact across racial lines,perhaps more so than in other parts of the country; it just had to be contact on terms defined by white people. Southern cities, for example, traditionally had lower indices of housing segregation than their Northern counterparts. A 1955 poll found only 53% of Southern blacks in agreement with Brown.

    And believe me, we’re going to get a lot of African immigrants soon.


    .

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  73. @EliteCommInc.

    I’ve been following some of their arguments they’re preparing for when the Supreme Court finally takes this on, they’re all the same tired old States Rights craps with the over used “Well technically Roe vs Wade was unclear here….” and the thinly veiled religious arguments. There is zero danger of Roe vs Wade being overturned

    They’re going to march smugly into a stacked court, make the same thinly veiled religious arguments, and the bioethics, privacy advocates, and legal experts are going to smack them down again like they did in 73. These people have learned nothing.

  74. @Kaosweaver

    Yes, if it is perceived to be tantamount to killing a toddler, pro-lifers are remarkably restrained in their opposition.

    I’d never really paid much attention to the abortion debate until the 2016 presidential election, when they attempted to hatchet Trump with a question about punishing women who get abortions if abortions were illegal. Obviously they would have to be punished in such a scenario–otherwise what’s the point of a law against it?–but Trump was roundly criticized anyway from the ostensibly pro-life side.

  75. @Oblivionrecurs

    “Open socialists were getting elected all over the lily-white midwest and that suddenly stopped when black people showed up. Sewer socialism in Milwaukee giving way to ruby-red Waukesha. ”

    What are you talking about? Waukesha is almost 90% white with a Republican mayor. By your logic the city should be majority black? Or they should import more blacks to ensure they stay Republican? … Which are these lily white socialist towns that needed blacks to reverse their voting habits? People near projects in Chicago may have been voting R at higher rates, but Chicago hasn’t had a Republican mayor in something like 100 years. It hasn’t had a Republican alderman in over 20 IIRC. Whites voting Republican when blacks are around may have as much to do with a desire for stricter policing of them, as well as liberal white flight (liberal whites are the first to flee the presence of blacks).

    And read this next bit carefully, and maybe read it more than once before you come back with some half cocked reply: I am not fan of socialism. Again, I am no fan of socialism. But what you don’t seem to understand is the policy matters less than the people implementing it. A city or country with a homogeneous white population with prosper more greatly with socialist policy than will a city or country comprised of a homogeneous negro population implementing a capitalist republic policy.

    In other words, EVERYTHING is downstream from race. Everything.

    PS: Chicago being my hometown, I have commented extensively here at Unz about the cause and effects of the attempted denegrofication of the city of Chicago. The highlighted portion of your graph’s caption, as well as its timeline, coincide specifically to the decommissioning of the infamous Cabrini Green (and some other) housing projects. But Democrat Richard Daley began the process shortly after his election in 89, by utilizing the expansion of section 8 by way of voucher program. His efforts turned my wife’s home town of Park Forest from a middle of the middle class town into a dilapidated ghetto in less than a generation. Dozens of towns in northern Illinois (and now eastern Iowa) have been destroyed by Daley’s efforts. They all would’ve been better off socialist and white than “Republican” and black.

  76. Twinkie says:
    @Oblivionrecurs

    Interestingly, concentrations of local Asian American and Latino populations do not engender white antipathy toward these groups.

    That depends on what kind of “Asians” (and Hispanics). Setting aside Hispanics for the moment, I can tell you that a large concentration of, say, Hmongs or Indians does engender white antipathy toward these groups. Actually, I think they engender antipathy from other Asians as well.

    Every single white person in my local social circle, but one, is now quite hostile toward Indians (and that includes my white wife and my half-white children). The exception? That guy is a prominent IT executive. He thinks Indians are just great.

    • Replies: @AP
  77. AP says:
    @Twinkie

    Interesting. My friends who work in IT or tech also strongly dislike Asians. In my field (I’ll be vague and say healthcare) I’ve had good experiences from Indian colleagues. Two whom I know the best are Christians from Kerala though.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS