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
Support for Legalized Abortion Over Time
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The following graph shows how views on abortion have changed over time by political persuasion:

Ronald Reagan’s famous Morning in America ad explicitly focused only on economic prosperity. The aesthetics hinted at cultural issues, but they were an afterthought. The modest differences between liberals and conservatives at the time explain why. By the time of Pat Buchanan’s Culture War speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention, in constrast, sentiments had diverged significantly.

The divergence continues to grow, much to the chagrin of Conservative Inc. It works hard ensuring the respectable right doesn’t fall too far behind the left. Conservatism Inc is tasked with ensuring that conservatism is the progressivism of five years ago. That it is liberalism’s shadow. The conservative case for X has become a meme because in so many cases–same-sex marriage, drug legalization, assisted suicide–it fits like a glove. But there are a handful of issues, like guns and abortion, where it doesn’t work. That’s not for lack of trying by the neo-liberal establishment, either.

It would behoove conservatives to understand the reasons for these divergent outcomes. Leaning on Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations framework, I suspect it has to do with harm reduction, a dimension of high importance to those on the left but also of moderate importance to those on the right. The harm reduction cases for legalizing same-sex marriage, drugs, and suicide are easy to make. The one for abortion, especially when the fetus is granted some sort of personhood status, is much harder. There is a reason the most effective arguments for gun rights involve self defense, especially of the most vulnerable (ie, a gun is the great equalizer between a small woman and a burly assailant).

GSS variables used: ABANY, YEAR, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

 
Hide 30 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The most annoying thing (for me!) about the ‘abortion debate’ is the psychological tricks Conservatives use in the vain hope to manipulate Liberals:

    “Hey, Liberals! Did you know abortion is ‘Black Genocide’? So why do you support it, anyway? Ha! I knew it: Liberals are the REAL racists!”

    (They also use words to that effect regarding foetuses with Down Syndrome.)
    .
    .
    .

    I know: there are ‘psychological tricks’ that, instead, Liberals use to try to manipulate Conservatives – such as, “Letting immigrants in is what Jesus would want!” or “Abolishing the Death Penalty would actually SAVE money!”, and the like.
    Difference is: Liberals’ tricks SOMETIMES do work! (many conservatives, at best, are naïve.)

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht
    @Vergissmeinnicht


    (They also use words to that effect regarding foetuses with Down Syndrome.)
     
    I forgot to mention, regarding that, the tricks frequently involve the use of two extra words: 'Nazi' and eugenics'.

    Replies: @Pop Warner

  2. One problem is that it is difficult to think of a little puddle of cells as a human being.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @iffen


    One problem is that it is difficult to think of a little puddle of cells as a human being.
     
    True. The slippery slope argument that insists that any woman you know who has had an early-term abortion is a murderer was never going to work. A much better argument is that it has undermined the monogamous nuclear family, but then nobody cares about that anymore so that won't work either.

    Replies: @very old statistician, @MattinLA

    , @RadicalCenter
    @iffen

    Not if you grasp basic biology and genetics. The size of an organism has nothing to with whether it is genetically a member of our species. Referring to the organism by terms meant to be diminishing or trivialising doesn’t change whether it is a member of our species either.

    When that distinct, genetically human being should be accorded legal personhood is, of course, another issue.

    Replies: @iffen

    , @SIMP simp
    @iffen

    You are a little puddle of cells

    Replies: @iffen

  3. There is a reason the most effective arguments for gun rights involve self defense, especially of the most vulnerable (ie, a gun is the great equalizer between a small woman and a burly assailant).

    Indeed. In any contest between women’s interests and elite interests, women lose. The women’s movement is a wholly owned subsidiary of the neoliberal elite establishment (or whatever we’re supposed to be calling them these days.

  4. @iffen
    One problem is that it is difficult to think of a little puddle of cells as a human being.

    Replies: @Rosie, @RadicalCenter, @SIMP simp

    One problem is that it is difficult to think of a little puddle of cells as a human being.

    True. The slippery slope argument that insists that any woman you know who has had an early-term abortion is a murderer was never going to work. A much better argument is that it has undermined the monogamous nuclear family, but then nobody cares about that anymore so that won’t work either.

    • Replies: @very old statistician
    @Rosie

    When I was about ten years old, I understood that ugly stupid people have as much value as people who are not ugly and stupid.

    You and your puddle of cells nonsense .....

    You have a lot of growing up to do.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Chrisnonymous

    , @MattinLA
    @Rosie

    Well, but they are murderers, though. And baby-killers. And kinslayers. That's just what they are.

    Replies: @Rosie

  5. @Vergissmeinnicht
    The most annoying thing (for me!) about the 'abortion debate' is the psychological tricks Conservatives use in the vain hope to manipulate Liberals:

    "Hey, Liberals! Did you know abortion is 'Black Genocide'? So why do you support it, anyway? Ha! I knew it: Liberals are the REAL racists!"

    (They also use words to that effect regarding foetuses with Down Syndrome.)
    .
    .
    .

    I know: there are 'psychological tricks' that, instead, Liberals use to try to manipulate Conservatives – such as, "Letting immigrants in is what Jesus would want!" or "Abolishing the Death Penalty would actually SAVE money!", and the like.
    Difference is: Liberals' tricks SOMETIMES do work! (many conservatives, at best, are naïve.)

    Replies: @Vergissmeinnicht

    (They also use words to that effect regarding foetuses with Down Syndrome.)

    I forgot to mention, regarding that, the tricks frequently involve the use of two extra words: ‘Nazi’ and eugenics’.

    • Replies: @Pop Warner
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    If pro-abortionists were smart, they would make the eugenics argument concerning disabled fetuses the central point of their appeal. Of course they won't need to call it eugenics but the principle remains the same. The "woman's rights" angle is tired nonsense that's only for those abortionist zealots in the first place; most other people don't care and those who see a fetus as a human life will never think a woman has a right to murder any more than they believe a man has a right to rape.

    But saying it will spare the parents (and the child) a lifetime of hardship and the taxpayer a lifetime of support is more compelling from a rational perspective. It tugs at heartstrings when some Christian group puts a lovable downs syndrome kid in their anti-abortion ads, but it doesn't really convince anybody that the child should not have been aborted. Anti-abortion people look at Iceland's eradication of Downs Syndrome as some great evil, but most everybody else sees it as a compelling argument in favor of abortion and the societal benefits of abortion.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  6. >Ronald Reagan’s famous Morning in America ad explicitly focused only on economic prosperity.

    Given the effective fusion of major corporations with the government, which the contemporary Democrats embody, guys like Josh Hawley advocating going Theodore Roosevelt 2.0 and breaking up the tech trusts *are* taking a small government position, when you think about it.

    Voters trust their checkbook more than anything else. Foreign policy, social issues-all well and good for people motivated by them, but the big crowds are turned out by material concerns. If they think your “principles” are going to impoverish them, then they’ll vote for someone else. Eternal principles exist for morality, not policy: people who think otherwise are ideologues. The coming GOP “civil war” is going to be stillborn: nobody outside their donors wants what the tricorner hat crowd is selling, and Trump has shown that merely showing the promise of something-anything-different is a one way ticket to the nomination, no matter how bizarre or ridiculous you otherwise are.

  7. Abortion is bad because it gives females freedom over their womb. This, along with the explosion of Jewish oligopoly power has been the fundamental reason behind the 20th century collapse of the West. The 21st century civilization destroyer avatar will be Trump, but the 20th is most certainly the Anglo-Jewish careerwoman.

    This history written by the CCP of course. Women will have destroyed history in the West by that point — if such an entity remains.

    • Replies: @very old statistician
    @Supply and Demand

    sad, if you had said "I am gonna live to be 200 years old" you would have indicated that some day you might meet the several tens of millions of descendants of people like me ....

    Trust me, my young friend, people who care about this world are going to be in charge and remain in charge over the average future time frame ---- clowns who send "contributions" to PLANNED PARENTHOOD or who make excuses for killing babies are signing their own ticket to OBLIVION.

  8. @Rosie
    @iffen


    One problem is that it is difficult to think of a little puddle of cells as a human being.
     
    True. The slippery slope argument that insists that any woman you know who has had an early-term abortion is a murderer was never going to work. A much better argument is that it has undermined the monogamous nuclear family, but then nobody cares about that anymore so that won't work either.

    Replies: @very old statistician, @MattinLA

    When I was about ten years old, I understood that ugly stupid people have as much value as people who are not ugly and stupid.

    You and your puddle of cells nonsense …..

    You have a lot of growing up to do.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @very old statistician


    When I was about ten years old, I understood that ugly stupid people have as much value as people who are not ugly and stupid.
     
    I can tell. Your generous nature really comes through here.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @very old statistician


    ugly stupid people have as much value as people who are not ugly and stupid
     
    No, they don't. They have equal rights, but not as much value.
  9. @Supply and Demand
    Abortion is bad because it gives females freedom over their womb. This, along with the explosion of Jewish oligopoly power has been the fundamental reason behind the 20th century collapse of the West. The 21st century civilization destroyer avatar will be Trump, but the 20th is most certainly the Anglo-Jewish careerwoman.

    This history written by the CCP of course. Women will have destroyed history in the West by that point -- if such an entity remains.

    Replies: @very old statistician

    sad, if you had said “I am gonna live to be 200 years old” you would have indicated that some day you might meet the several tens of millions of descendants of people like me ….

    Trust me, my young friend, people who care about this world are going to be in charge and remain in charge over the average future time frame —- clowns who send “contributions” to PLANNED PARENTHOOD or who make excuses for killing babies are signing their own ticket to OBLIVION.

  10. 1) This issue is a red herring or a straw man, depending on how it is used. It is not important to the politics of our day, or any other day. It would be better if “Conservative” whatever would set it aside. It never has gotten them anywhere, and plenty of us “conservative” voters don’t really give a damn about it.

    2) The problem with this issue is often the way it is framed: absolutist. “Abortion is terrible and should be illegal.” As if abortion is only one thing and as if there aren’t nine frigging months of difference along the way.

    3) Early term abortions, say during the first three months, are not the same thing as late term, but both political sides of this argument act as if they are the same. That’s nuts. Why can’t anybody just agree that early abortions are not the same as late ones?

    4) Could it be that anti-abortionists are not really concerned about the baby, but instead about the choice? Remember: contraception itself has been illegal in some places and frowned upon in others. See?

    • Replies: @216
    @Buzz Mohawk


    3) Early term abortions, say during the first three months, are not the same thing as late term, but both political sides of this argument act as if they are the same. That’s nuts. Why can’t anybody just agree that early abortions are not the same as late ones?

    4) Could it be that anti-abortionists are not really concerned about the baby, but instead about the choice? Remember: contraception itself has been illegal in some places and frowned upon in others. See?
     
    You're applying the Liberal Standard to conservatives, denying them their own agency. This is typical of those who believe that liberals have mind-reading powers, and that liberals have the duty to police the Right's boundaries.

    Conservatism Inc has plenty of opportunities to indicate disapproval towards contraception and female sexuality. But they don't, they always frame the issue as one where women who seek abortions are also victims.

    Movement conservatism has done almost nothing to stop feminism where it matters most, the economy.

    One would imagine that "banning Tinder" would be orders of magnitude easier than "banning abortion".

    But mainstream conservatives won't ever say the former, I will though, and that's because this is the Dissident Right.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  11. @very old statistician
    @Rosie

    When I was about ten years old, I understood that ugly stupid people have as much value as people who are not ugly and stupid.

    You and your puddle of cells nonsense .....

    You have a lot of growing up to do.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Chrisnonymous

    When I was about ten years old, I understood that ugly stupid people have as much value as people who are not ugly and stupid.

    I can tell. Your generous nature really comes through here.

    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    @Rosie

    He seems kinder than people who call a tiny, helpless, innocent human being a “puddle of cells.” Lucky that you and Iffen weren’t killed by “doctors” at the behest of your parents when you were “merely a puddle of cells.”

    Replies: @Rosie

  12. @Rosie
    @iffen


    One problem is that it is difficult to think of a little puddle of cells as a human being.
     
    True. The slippery slope argument that insists that any woman you know who has had an early-term abortion is a murderer was never going to work. A much better argument is that it has undermined the monogamous nuclear family, but then nobody cares about that anymore so that won't work either.

    Replies: @very old statistician, @MattinLA

    Well, but they are murderers, though. And baby-killers. And kinslayers. That’s just what they are.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @MattinLA


    Well, but they are murderers, though. And baby-killers. And kinslayers. That’s just what they are.
     
    Spare us the question-begging.
  13. @MattinLA
    @Rosie

    Well, but they are murderers, though. And baby-killers. And kinslayers. That's just what they are.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Well, but they are murderers, though. And baby-killers. And kinslayers. That’s just what they are.

    Spare us the question-begging.

  14. Polls on abortion are worthless. Suffice it to say, the law was changed by judicial diktat.

    If those against abortion came to dominate society again it would be illegal immediately and there would be little public protest.

    In the mean time, we need to teach absolute intolerance of abortionism and feminism in general to Rightists. We cannot allow these trashy people to subvert our message with their subhumanity.

  15. Let’s cut to the chase: these abortion supporters want to get rid of unwanted babies and to do so they destroy human life. If the fertilized zygote were in the shape of a homunculus they would still be determined to destroy it, and of course they want to destroy the child in the womb at every stage of development. As it is, our abortion laws allow full term abortion and the harvesting of organs is routinely done. These people will inevitably push for infanticide.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  16. @Buzz Mohawk
    1) This issue is a red herring or a straw man, depending on how it is used. It is not important to the politics of our day, or any other day. It would be better if "Conservative" whatever would set it aside. It never has gotten them anywhere, and plenty of us "conservative" voters don't really give a damn about it.

    2) The problem with this issue is often the way it is framed: absolutist. "Abortion is terrible and should be illegal." As if abortion is only one thing and as if there aren't nine frigging months of difference along the way.

    3) Early term abortions, say during the first three months, are not the same thing as late term, but both political sides of this argument act as if they are the same. That's nuts. Why can't anybody just agree that early abortions are not the same as late ones?

    4) Could it be that anti-abortionists are not really concerned about the baby, but instead about the choice? Remember: contraception itself has been illegal in some places and frowned upon in others. See?

    Replies: @216

    3) Early term abortions, say during the first three months, are not the same thing as late term, but both political sides of this argument act as if they are the same. That’s nuts. Why can’t anybody just agree that early abortions are not the same as late ones?

    4) Could it be that anti-abortionists are not really concerned about the baby, but instead about the choice? Remember: contraception itself has been illegal in some places and frowned upon in others. See?

    You’re applying the Liberal Standard to conservatives, denying them their own agency. This is typical of those who believe that liberals have mind-reading powers, and that liberals have the duty to police the Right’s boundaries.

    Conservatism Inc has plenty of opportunities to indicate disapproval towards contraception and female sexuality. But they don’t, they always frame the issue as one where women who seek abortions are also victims.

    Movement conservatism has done almost nothing to stop feminism where it matters most, the economy.

    One would imagine that “banning Tinder” would be orders of magnitude easier than “banning abortion”.

    But mainstream conservatives won’t ever say the former, I will though, and that’s because this is the Dissident Right.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @216

    Thanks. I was going to post something similar. I grew up as a standard Republican very much from the Alex P. Keaton mold. However, sometime after university, I realized that my main issue with abortion was exactly what feminists were demanding--unfettered female choice. The real horror of abortion (at least, early-term) is not that a blob of species-specific cells is destroyed but that feminists reduce the complex in which biology is fused with our higher order life to literally create society down to "muh body" placard issues.

    When I was last interested in engaging with the issue intellectually, I believe Robert P. George was the public intellectual who gone farthest to bring together American legal and Catholic moral thought on the plain of philosophy. However, the last thing I read about abortion was his small book making the case that there is no point after conception at which the emergence of personhood can be seen to take place (and that therefore abortion after conception should be illegal), but I found it unconvincing. I think the correct position is that abortion should be legal up until the point that a woman is aware of her pregnancy. So, for example, chemical means meant to abort pregnancy in situations where women want to make sure they don't get pregnant should probably be legal. This not satisfying from a social conservative point of view because, in modern society it preserves young single women's chances to do the "alpha cock carousel" with impunity. However, in better-structures societies where the "alpha cock carousel" was prevented by social opprobrium, it would be a more clearly sensible position, I think.

    In the years immediately after uni, I was much more intellectually vigorous than now and thought a lot more about various topics. I actually developed what I thought was a pretty strong argument that legal abortion counterintuitively reduces female choice and should be opposed on that ground. However, my age- and alcohol-addled brain can't reconstruct it now. But I bet a few smarty-pants commenters on UR could come up with similar arguments.

    Replies: @216

  17. What motivates liberals is the belief in few/no restrictions on female sexuality, while increasing restrictions on male sexuality.

    • Agree: Pop Warner
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @216


    What motivates liberals is the belief in few/no restrictions on female sexuality, while increasing restrictions on male sexuality.
     
    Let's talk Turkey, 216. What sorts of restrictions do you have in mind? And how is male sexuality restricted in ways that it should not be?

    As I see it, the rules are these: Have sex with whomever you like, but you can't rape people, pay for sex, or use political or economic power to extort sexual favors from your subordinates. WTF is your problem with that?

    Your complaints about women being educated lead me to believe that what you really want is ye old madonna/whore dichotomy that allows men to have whatever they want, whenever they want, regardless of the human cost.

    We all know damned well that when it comes to sexuality, men are the problem. What does the Bible have to say about the matter?

    https://biblia.com/bible/esv/deuteronomy/22/28-29

    The manosphere pity party regarding this matter is truly pathetic.
  18. @Vergissmeinnicht
    @Vergissmeinnicht


    (They also use words to that effect regarding foetuses with Down Syndrome.)
     
    I forgot to mention, regarding that, the tricks frequently involve the use of two extra words: 'Nazi' and eugenics'.

    Replies: @Pop Warner

    If pro-abortionists were smart, they would make the eugenics argument concerning disabled fetuses the central point of their appeal. Of course they won’t need to call it eugenics but the principle remains the same. The “woman’s rights” angle is tired nonsense that’s only for those abortionist zealots in the first place; most other people don’t care and those who see a fetus as a human life will never think a woman has a right to murder any more than they believe a man has a right to rape.

    But saying it will spare the parents (and the child) a lifetime of hardship and the taxpayer a lifetime of support is more compelling from a rational perspective. It tugs at heartstrings when some Christian group puts a lovable downs syndrome kid in their anti-abortion ads, but it doesn’t really convince anybody that the child should not have been aborted. Anti-abortion people look at Iceland’s eradication of Downs Syndrome as some great evil, but most everybody else sees it as a compelling argument in favor of abortion and the societal benefits of abortion.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Pop Warner

    This is rational but would never fly with the left because the problem with eugenics is that it makes value judgements. I was watching a Mark Steyn-Douglas Murray interview yesterday, and they were having a laugh over the idea that the next "privilege" to be attacked by the Woke would be attractiveness, but they made the same mistake as you. The left will not acknowledge "beauty privilege" because it inheres the concept of beauty. It is too close to truth.

  19. @iffen
    One problem is that it is difficult to think of a little puddle of cells as a human being.

    Replies: @Rosie, @RadicalCenter, @SIMP simp

    Not if you grasp basic biology and genetics. The size of an organism has nothing to with whether it is genetically a member of our species. Referring to the organism by terms meant to be diminishing or trivialising doesn’t change whether it is a member of our species either.

    When that distinct, genetically human being should be accorded legal personhood is, of course, another issue.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @RadicalCenter

    When that distinct, genetically human being should be accorded legal personhood is, of course, another issue.

    It's a good thing that you grasp the essential point.

  20. @Rosie
    @very old statistician


    When I was about ten years old, I understood that ugly stupid people have as much value as people who are not ugly and stupid.
     
    I can tell. Your generous nature really comes through here.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

    He seems kinder than people who call a tiny, helpless, innocent human being a “puddle of cells.” Lucky that you and Iffen weren’t killed by “doctors” at the behest of your parents when you were “merely a puddle of cells.”

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @RadicalCenter


    Lucky that you and Iffen weren’t killed by “doctors” at the behest of your parents when you were “merely a puddle of cells.”
     
    Of course, had my Mom just said no (or had my father put on his raincoat), I would never have been born. It does not follow that such decisions would have been immoral on either count.

    For what it's worth, I have the utmost respect and gratitude for my mother, who chose to have me under less than ideal circumstances. That's part of why the single mother bashing pisses me off as it does. I don't recall ever hearing you push back against the single mom hate.

    There is room for dispute as to when a fetus becomes a person whose right to life is more important than a woman's right to have an abortion, but if you're going to call people murderers, you need to make a real argument. Emotional manipulation doesn't work on me.
  21. @iffen
    One problem is that it is difficult to think of a little puddle of cells as a human being.

    Replies: @Rosie, @RadicalCenter, @SIMP simp

    You are a little puddle of cells

    • Replies: @iffen
    @SIMP simp

    Well, akshully, I'm a fairly big puddle these days and I have changed them out several times. As it goes, some of the replacements are not working as well as the originals.

  22. @SIMP simp
    @iffen

    You are a little puddle of cells

    Replies: @iffen

    Well, akshully, I’m a fairly big puddle these days and I have changed them out several times. As it goes, some of the replacements are not working as well as the originals.

  23. @very old statistician
    @Rosie

    When I was about ten years old, I understood that ugly stupid people have as much value as people who are not ugly and stupid.

    You and your puddle of cells nonsense .....

    You have a lot of growing up to do.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Chrisnonymous

    ugly stupid people have as much value as people who are not ugly and stupid

    No, they don’t. They have equal rights, but not as much value.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Disagree: Rosie
  24. @RadicalCenter
    @iffen

    Not if you grasp basic biology and genetics. The size of an organism has nothing to with whether it is genetically a member of our species. Referring to the organism by terms meant to be diminishing or trivialising doesn’t change whether it is a member of our species either.

    When that distinct, genetically human being should be accorded legal personhood is, of course, another issue.

    Replies: @iffen

    When that distinct, genetically human being should be accorded legal personhood is, of course, another issue.

    It’s a good thing that you grasp the essential point.

    • Agree: Rosie
  25. @216
    @Buzz Mohawk


    3) Early term abortions, say during the first three months, are not the same thing as late term, but both political sides of this argument act as if they are the same. That’s nuts. Why can’t anybody just agree that early abortions are not the same as late ones?

    4) Could it be that anti-abortionists are not really concerned about the baby, but instead about the choice? Remember: contraception itself has been illegal in some places and frowned upon in others. See?
     
    You're applying the Liberal Standard to conservatives, denying them their own agency. This is typical of those who believe that liberals have mind-reading powers, and that liberals have the duty to police the Right's boundaries.

    Conservatism Inc has plenty of opportunities to indicate disapproval towards contraception and female sexuality. But they don't, they always frame the issue as one where women who seek abortions are also victims.

    Movement conservatism has done almost nothing to stop feminism where it matters most, the economy.

    One would imagine that "banning Tinder" would be orders of magnitude easier than "banning abortion".

    But mainstream conservatives won't ever say the former, I will though, and that's because this is the Dissident Right.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Thanks. I was going to post something similar. I grew up as a standard Republican very much from the Alex P. Keaton mold. However, sometime after university, I realized that my main issue with abortion was exactly what feminists were demanding–unfettered female choice. The real horror of abortion (at least, early-term) is not that a blob of species-specific cells is destroyed but that feminists reduce the complex in which biology is fused with our higher order life to literally create society down to “muh body” placard issues.

    When I was last interested in engaging with the issue intellectually, I believe Robert P. George was the public intellectual who gone farthest to bring together American legal and Catholic moral thought on the plain of philosophy. However, the last thing I read about abortion was his small book making the case that there is no point after conception at which the emergence of personhood can be seen to take place (and that therefore abortion after conception should be illegal), but I found it unconvincing. I think the correct position is that abortion should be legal up until the point that a woman is aware of her pregnancy. So, for example, chemical means meant to abort pregnancy in situations where women want to make sure they don’t get pregnant should probably be legal. This not satisfying from a social conservative point of view because, in modern society it preserves young single women’s chances to do the “alpha cock carousel” with impunity. However, in better-structures societies where the “alpha cock carousel” was prevented by social opprobrium, it would be a more clearly sensible position, I think.

    In the years immediately after uni, I was much more intellectually vigorous than now and thought a lot more about various topics. I actually developed what I thought was a pretty strong argument that legal abortion counterintuitively reduces female choice and should be opposed on that ground. However, my age- and alcohol-addled brain can’t reconstruct it now. But I bet a few smarty-pants commenters on UR could come up with similar arguments.

    • Replies: @216
    @Chrisnonymous


    However, in better-structures societies where the “alpha cock carousel” was prevented by social opprobrium
     
    This is very hard to square with present economic conditions. A society where about half of women go to university, and almost all women within the upper classes; is not a society where female sexuality can be easily restrained.

    The social conservative position is that sex is reserved for marriage, but few social conservatives outside of the LDS would accept marriage between university students, or marriage to a man a few years out of university (the age gap length is another divergence).

    One aspect that is also different about Mormon society is that men are sent on a missionary work, and its common for a marriage to happen when the male returns. A secular equivalent would be conscripting men for two years, but the societies that do this (SK, ROK, ROC) have abysmal fertility rates.

    Our society, whether intentionally or not, has found a way to restrict male sexuality for a considerable part of the young population. But it has not restricted pornography consumption, which leads to female contempt. While young men mostly seem to have accepted restraints on sexuality, a crackdown on pr0n might actually risk violence.
  26. @Pop Warner
    @Vergissmeinnicht

    If pro-abortionists were smart, they would make the eugenics argument concerning disabled fetuses the central point of their appeal. Of course they won't need to call it eugenics but the principle remains the same. The "woman's rights" angle is tired nonsense that's only for those abortionist zealots in the first place; most other people don't care and those who see a fetus as a human life will never think a woman has a right to murder any more than they believe a man has a right to rape.

    But saying it will spare the parents (and the child) a lifetime of hardship and the taxpayer a lifetime of support is more compelling from a rational perspective. It tugs at heartstrings when some Christian group puts a lovable downs syndrome kid in their anti-abortion ads, but it doesn't really convince anybody that the child should not have been aborted. Anti-abortion people look at Iceland's eradication of Downs Syndrome as some great evil, but most everybody else sees it as a compelling argument in favor of abortion and the societal benefits of abortion.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    This is rational but would never fly with the left because the problem with eugenics is that it makes value judgements. I was watching a Mark Steyn-Douglas Murray interview yesterday, and they were having a laugh over the idea that the next “privilege” to be attacked by the Woke would be attractiveness, but they made the same mistake as you. The left will not acknowledge “beauty privilege” because it inheres the concept of beauty. It is too close to truth.

  27. 216 says: • Website
    @Chrisnonymous
    @216

    Thanks. I was going to post something similar. I grew up as a standard Republican very much from the Alex P. Keaton mold. However, sometime after university, I realized that my main issue with abortion was exactly what feminists were demanding--unfettered female choice. The real horror of abortion (at least, early-term) is not that a blob of species-specific cells is destroyed but that feminists reduce the complex in which biology is fused with our higher order life to literally create society down to "muh body" placard issues.

    When I was last interested in engaging with the issue intellectually, I believe Robert P. George was the public intellectual who gone farthest to bring together American legal and Catholic moral thought on the plain of philosophy. However, the last thing I read about abortion was his small book making the case that there is no point after conception at which the emergence of personhood can be seen to take place (and that therefore abortion after conception should be illegal), but I found it unconvincing. I think the correct position is that abortion should be legal up until the point that a woman is aware of her pregnancy. So, for example, chemical means meant to abort pregnancy in situations where women want to make sure they don't get pregnant should probably be legal. This not satisfying from a social conservative point of view because, in modern society it preserves young single women's chances to do the "alpha cock carousel" with impunity. However, in better-structures societies where the "alpha cock carousel" was prevented by social opprobrium, it would be a more clearly sensible position, I think.

    In the years immediately after uni, I was much more intellectually vigorous than now and thought a lot more about various topics. I actually developed what I thought was a pretty strong argument that legal abortion counterintuitively reduces female choice and should be opposed on that ground. However, my age- and alcohol-addled brain can't reconstruct it now. But I bet a few smarty-pants commenters on UR could come up with similar arguments.

    Replies: @216

    However, in better-structures societies where the “alpha cock carousel” was prevented by social opprobrium

    This is very hard to square with present economic conditions. A society where about half of women go to university, and almost all women within the upper classes; is not a society where female sexuality can be easily restrained.

    The social conservative position is that sex is reserved for marriage, but few social conservatives outside of the LDS would accept marriage between university students, or marriage to a man a few years out of university (the age gap length is another divergence).

    One aspect that is also different about Mormon society is that men are sent on a missionary work, and its common for a marriage to happen when the male returns. A secular equivalent would be conscripting men for two years, but the societies that do this (SK, ROK, ROC) have abysmal fertility rates.

    Our society, whether intentionally or not, has found a way to restrict male sexuality for a considerable part of the young population. But it has not restricted pornography consumption, which leads to female contempt. While young men mostly seem to have accepted restraints on sexuality, a crackdown on pr0n might actually risk violence.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  28. @RadicalCenter
    @Rosie

    He seems kinder than people who call a tiny, helpless, innocent human being a “puddle of cells.” Lucky that you and Iffen weren’t killed by “doctors” at the behest of your parents when you were “merely a puddle of cells.”

    Replies: @Rosie

    Lucky that you and Iffen weren’t killed by “doctors” at the behest of your parents when you were “merely a puddle of cells.”

    Of course, had my Mom just said no (or had my father put on his raincoat), I would never have been born. It does not follow that such decisions would have been immoral on either count.

    For what it’s worth, I have the utmost respect and gratitude for my mother, who chose to have me under less than ideal circumstances. That’s part of why the single mother bashing pisses me off as it does. I don’t recall ever hearing you push back against the single mom hate.

    There is room for dispute as to when a fetus becomes a person whose right to life is more important than a woman’s right to have an abortion, but if you’re going to call people murderers, you need to make a real argument. Emotional manipulation doesn’t work on me.

  29. @216
    What motivates liberals is the belief in few/no restrictions on female sexuality, while increasing restrictions on male sexuality.

    Replies: @Rosie

    What motivates liberals is the belief in few/no restrictions on female sexuality, while increasing restrictions on male sexuality.

    Let’s talk Turkey, 216. What sorts of restrictions do you have in mind? And how is male sexuality restricted in ways that it should not be?

    As I see it, the rules are these: Have sex with whomever you like, but you can’t rape people, pay for sex, or use political or economic power to extort sexual favors from your subordinates. WTF is your problem with that?

    Your complaints about women being educated lead me to believe that what you really want is ye old madonna/whore dichotomy that allows men to have whatever they want, whenever they want, regardless of the human cost.

    We all know damned well that when it comes to sexuality, men are the problem. What does the Bible have to say about the matter?

    https://biblia.com/bible/esv/deuteronomy/22/28-29

    The manosphere pity party regarding this matter is truly pathetic.

  30. >We all know damned well that when it comes to sexuality, men are the problem.

    Nobody’s “the problem”. Men and women are different. They deal with different challenges. Apples and oranges and all that.

    I think we’d be much better served as a society by embracing the foibles of the opposite sex with a smile. It’s meant to be fun! If it isn’t, then something is wrong: and both sexes should collaborate to make things better.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS