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.