RE: Heretical Thoughts on Abortion – A Pro-Life Position


"Louise Nursing Her Child", by Mary Cassatt (1898)

“Louise Nursing Her Child”, by Mary Cassatt (1898)

Marian Van Court’s “Heretical Thoughts on Abortion and Eugenics” at Counter-Currents stakes out a pro-abortion position for racialists, insisting that the issue is so important that we eugenicists must “vigorously oppose all so-called ‘Pro-Life’ candidates, and the utterly outrageous ‘Personhood’ amendments.” It relies on the intuitive (yet problematic) notion that the moral and legal normalization of abortion generally produces a eugenic effect. While I’m first and finally opposed to abortion for dogmatic religious reasons, my opposition to abortion precedes my religious conversion, and can be presented in secular terms.

The majority of Van Court’s article sticks with familiar and plausible reasons why one should favor abortion, but her sloppy insistence that one should favor abortion because the Jewish people are the ultimate eugenicists and abortion is eugenic could hardly be further from the truth. The Jewish people do indeed take genetic health very seriously, and yet the Jewish State is one of the most difficult industrialized countries to receive an abortion in, requiring an elaborate administrative boondoggle so elaborate even Jews find it frustrating, resulting in roughly half of Israeli abortions taking place on the black market.

Organized Jewry clearly holds the same bifurcated position on this issue that it takes on just about everything that’s degenerate and destructive; “abortions for thee, but not for me,” turning Van Court’s own “Let’s emulate those clever Jews!” argument on its head and raising the inverse question: “If the most deliberately racialist, eugenicist and natalist state in the world morally proscribes and legally discourages abortion, then perhaps we should reconsider the popular presumption of a simple correlation between accessible and encouraged abortion and a population’s genetic welfare.

The second distraction from Van Court’s argument to be discarded is her asinine second-guessing of Christian dogma from an outsider’s perspective.

Numerous embryos develop naturally in the womb and then spontaneously abort (the woman’s period is “late”). In fact, geneticists believe that perhaps the majority of conceptions spontaneously abort. It would be interesting to hear what Pro-Lifers have to say about that. According to their own dubious reasoning, everything that happens “naturally” is God’s will. Wouldn’t this mean that God aborts vast numbers of embryos and fetuses? It’s an inescapable conclusion. And if God commits abortion, then how could it be a terrible sin against God? I see no way out of this contradiction. Embryos and fetuses that spontaneously abort are usually defective, often with chromosomal abnormalities, so maybe this gives us a clue into God’s intention. Maybe God doesn’t want defective fetuses coming to term and becoming defective children. And if God is a eugenicist, would it be so wrong for us to follow God’s lead and only deliver healthy babies?

The short and complete answer to this speculation is simply that the overwhelming majority of committed Christians reject this “argument.” If I were to ask folk religionists why Thor hasn’t stricken the Jews with his mighty hammer or if I heckled Hindus about why Vishnu’s latest avatar proves absent at an opportune moment for an incarnation, it would and should be dismissed as a hostile outsider’s disingenuous trolling of an internal conversation I have no standing in. For the sake of argument, imagining that such an argument were being made with standing by a fellow Christian, my response would be that terminating embryos on our terms rather than his would be usurping God’s will. After all, could this same reasoning not be followed beyond birth, empowering us to arbitrarily kill people given that God often strikes people with terminal cancer and lightning strikes?

It’s okay for God to kill humans at his discretion because he’s God and we’re not. QED.

Those two distractions aside, her case for morally condoning and legally allowing abortion for eugenic reasons comes down to the simple and straightforward proposition that genetically unfit offspring can be and often are aborted, indubitably achieving the eugenic prerogative in those circumstances. Morality aside, it’s categorically eugenic, right? But once one accounts for the complete context within which these decisions are made, determining whether abortion is eugenic becomes anything but simple and straightforward. To begin with, allowing one to live and allowing one to reproduce are two separate things, and humane policies which result in sterilization can achieve the eugenic end goal without treading on the sanctity of human life, either through incentives for the individual or empowerment of their care-givers should the afflicted lack agency.

The humane case for abortion, in light of the potential suffering of those afflicted with genetic conditions, is also more complex than it first appears. First of all, for this statistically small portion of folks, pain management treatments are generally effective in ensuring that they’re not trapped in a living hell. The thought of somebody’s life being an unconscionable and incoherent blur of pain and confusion tugs at my heart strings as well, but there are other ways to address this than abortion. First, pain can be treated. Second, there’s an important bio-ethical debate over whether extraordinary measures and elaborate technologies should be used to keep a human alive who would have naturally passed away, and sometimes allowing death is the moral, compassionate, and Christian thing to do.

But the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with this statistically anomalous tug at the heart strings. And if we’re to set statistics aside and appeal to unlikely exceptions anyway, we should also present for review the numerous cases in which mothers defied medical professionals’ recommendation to terminate pregnancies for humane reasons and went on to have a healthy and normal or even exceptional child. Compassion cuts both ways, here. And given that the solid majority of abortions occur to perfectly healthy humans who would have been thankful to be alive, the pro-abortion side’s appeals to emotion are objectively outweighed.

Marian confirms that it can be very expensive and time-consuming to care for and treat folks with congenital disabilities, placing a tremendous burden on both the mother and the society at large. She’s absolutely correct on this count. The lifetime cost of caring for the disabled can be positively staggering, both in monetary and less quantifiable terms. Though, in the grand scheme of things, it’s not even the worst part of our society’s healthcare budget, much less its overall ledger. Much more can and should be done to provide relief for the parents of the permanently disabled, and our current arrangement is unacceptable, one where’s it’s difficult and discouraged to receive an abortion, yet assistance is inconsistent and incomplete. If one’s going to be anti-abortion, one should also favor comprehensive socialist policies to aid mothers and families who are overwhelmed by the offspring, be they healthy or congenitally ill.

The fact that being anti-abortion is bundled in with being opposed to assisting unwed mothers or expanding medical programs for the permanently disabled in a singular “Republican” party one must vote either for or against is reason enough to perform a late-term back-alley abortion on this congenitally defective country.

The enormous expense of supporting indigent parents and delivering at-home and/or institutional healthcare for the congenitally disabled should be eagerly borne by the state because the social benefits of drawing a bright white line around the sanctity of human life, encouraging fertility, and celebrating birth and motherhood pays dividends which reverberate throughout the society, directly and indirectly strengthening it in numerous ways. It even, believe it or not, benefits the society eugenically. Humans are abstraction-oriented creatures, with the fittest ones generally proving the most abstraction-oriented of all.

Intelligent White people are a fickle and funny bunch, being much less motivated by selfish and practical considerations than they are by abstract moral imperatives. While constructing a framework of Pavlovian incentives and disincentives for eugenic breeding may work with other more pragmatic populations, and may well find success among whites on the left side of our own bell curve, history confirms that the only reliable way to prod our best and brightest to stop being pandas and start being rabbits is to convert (not convince!) them to the belief that reproduction is a truly sacred and selfless altruistic moral imperative.

This isn’t theoretical. It’s demonstrable. White Nationalist intellectuals tend to be brighter than average and they’re almost all convinced that “we” should have more children. If heartfelt facebook memes featuring adorable white children with appeals to have them actually worked with the target audience, we wouldn’t even need to bother with outreach, as we would be well on our way to out-breeding our opponents. What demonstrably works is religious zeal. It needn’t necessarily be Christian religious zeal, mind you. I’m not evangelizing here. To instigate a eugenic shift in our population, the trick is to convert them to the belief that creating life is not merely statistically advantageous or emotionally fulfilling, but a sacred duty.

In the final analysis, the authentically and comprehensively eugenic position for our cause is the anti-abortion position that absolutely every human life which is created is unfathomably precious, worthy of bringing to term, and deserving of our investment in his or her health and success.


  • Kyle

    Great response. I’d argue that pairing White nationalism with eugenics is an unjustified conflation. Appalachians may not be as bright or accomplished as preppy Ivy League Whites (or increasingly Jews) yet are a wholesome and decent people with a noble folk culture, which has always had healthy instincts and resisted the Left.

    • tradyouth

      Pffft… We Appalachian Americans are the pinnacle of genetic excellence! 😀

  • J

    Wow when I heard about this and saw it I have to say I thought this was a joke! but you guys are actually serious about this. Everything about what you are doing and promoting is flat out wrong, its ugly its immoral and insensitive. You are everything that is wrong with humanity and are part of the problem that this world is in. You need to take a deep long look at what you are doing and promoting and really ask yourselves if being racist, white supremacists and promoting the notion that a woman is not worthy of having the right to choose about what happens to her own body is flat out disturbing.

    If a woman gets pregnant under situations that the couple did not anticipate for various reasons, personal preparedness, financial reasons, relationship reasons. The woman has the right to determine to if she herself is ready for kids or not. A Child is very hard to raise and if someone isnt ready then you are hurting the child just as much as you are hurting the parent by not allowing them to have the happiest and most fruitful life they can live do to circumstance. Everyone has the right to birth control, to love who ever they want (yes I am talking about same-sex marriage) and you have no right to say otherwise. To do so would be immoral and borderline EVIL.

    “the Jewish people are the ultimate eugenicists and abortion is eugenic” As a descendant of Holocaust survivors and has several family members who died by the hands of white supremacists like yourselves, I find this statement deeply troubling for the health of our nation. Your disgusting statement is part of the cancer that is afflicting this society. You need to realize that we are all on this earth together. I come from a very multicultural family, my uncle is from Iran and my Cousin just married a great guy from Mexico City, my other Aunt is Korean and my Girlfriend is African American. I find this diversity to be enriching and exhilerating to live in a family of so many dynamic people.

    It saddens me so much that blatant racism still exists in this world. you guys cant win, you will never win. You will fade into nothingness as we as a collective society overcome the disease that you are a symptom of. Everyone has the right to choose how they live their life and it is none of your business to stick your fucking hatred and disapproval into another woman’s uterus.

    • tradyouth

      You are everything that is wrong with humanity

      Thank you.

      A Child is very hard to raise and if someone isnt ready then you are hurting the child just as much as you are hurting the parent

      Hurting the child by not killing it, eh? Adoption is an option. And, speaking as a parent, kids aren’t that hard to raise. Caring for the elderly is a pain in the butt, too, but we’re not allowed to collapse grandma’s skull and vacuum her brains out because she’s a bother.

      Everyone has the right to birth control, to love who ever they want (yes I am talking about same-sex marriage) and you have no right to say otherwise

      Last I checked, it’s still perfectly legal for two dudes to love one another. It’s also legal for me to put on a Burger King kids meal crown and call myself a king, yet the government has yet to grant me a title of nobility.

      The Enlightenment notions of “rights” and “freedoms” have been extended to the inalienable “right” to slaughter your own offspring to preserve your “freedom”. Funny how you suddenly see a limit to the abstract “right” to free expression when I exercise my right to call bullshit on it all.

      You need to realize that we are all on this earth together.

      Trust me, I know. I don’t need reminded more than I already am.

      I come from a very multicultural family, my uncle is from Iran and my Cousin just married a great guy from Mexico City, my other Aunt is Korean and my Girlfriend is African American.

      Good for you and them. But why force the rest of us to be multicultural if we don’t find it enriching and exhilerating?

      It saddens me so much that blatant racism still exists in this world. you guys cant win, you will never win.

      False. We’re destined to win because we strive to be on the side of God and his Nature, rather than on the side of greed and hubris. Your type always make it look like you’re unstoppable right before it all implodes and humanity goes right back to its tribal and traditional roots.

      Everyone has the right to choose how they live their life and it is none of your business to stick your fucking hatred and disapproval into another woman’s uterus.

  • Ezra Pound’s Ghost

    I always frame the abortion (and birth control) question thusly: Would it be desirable to invent a pill which when ingested suppressed all sense of physical pain? Obviously such a pill would not be desirable and the reason is because human beings have been evolving for millions of years within a certain “environment” whereby when X occurs (e.g., when I put my finger in a flame), Y inevitably follows (I burn my finger). The hypothetical pain-killing pill would have the effect to severing that million-year-old cause and effect relationship which in turn would lead to gross social chaos. (If no one was afraid of pain, what kinds of crazy things would people do?) Abortion and contraception are the same thing. Humans have been evolving for millions of years in an “environment” whereby when two people had sex, a child (almost) inevitably followed. What abortion and birth control have done is throw a monkey-wrench into that million-year-old “environment” and totally disrupted it. All things being equal, a young woman regulates her sexuality on the basis of the knowledge that sex leads to babies. When sex no longer necessarily leads to babies, what incentive does a young woman have to regulate her sexuality? Whatever motivation it is, if any, it cannot compare to the possibility of childbirth. So, the real argument against abortion, to my thinking, is not about the lives of the babies or about usurping God’s authority (though those are good reasons in and of themselves), it is about social stability. Also, I firmly believe, but don’t have the statistics to back it up, that the availability of abortions is both generally dysgenic and also leads to more unwanted births: this is because knowing that abortion is available encourages reckless sexual behavior (“if I get pregnant I can just get an abortion”), which often results in pregnancy, but then the mother, for one reason or another, can’t actually bring herself to kill the child (or else sees $$$ in welfare money), so it is born anyway, whereas if abortion hadn’t been an option, she would not have chosen to engage in the risky behavior in the first place. If abortion is so eugenic, then why are WASPs such a totally degerated and barren group compared to when they embraced Sanger’s quackery in the 1930’s? And as far as Jews go, they have more genetic diseases and mental illness than any other group of people out there.

"Louise Nursing Her Child", by Mary Cassatt (1898)

By: Matt Parrott


Matt is a founding member of TradYouth and is currently the project's Chief Information Officer. He's been active in the White Identity cause for years, primarily as a blogger but also as a street activist and regional organizer.
%d bloggers like this: