Monday, January 23, 2017

Abortions for all, miniature American flags for no one

Feminism is putatively about gender equality, yet granting "reproductive rights" exclusively to women is anything but. That unrestricted access to abortion is the issue that motivates so many mountains to move is more than a little macabre.

Biology has a way of sorting things out, though. The women who are so motivated are the least nurturing members of the covenhood. The following table and graph show the percentages of women who believe that abortion should be legal in any circumstance by the number of children they have. For contemporary relevance and to avoid racial confounding, all responses are from non-Hispanic whites and are from 2000 onward (n = 4,072):

KidsAbort!
053.5%
146.8%
240.0%
3+30.6%


Restricting abortion is a clumsy, blunt tool for moving closer to sexual parity, but it's the only one men have for asserting any reproductive rights of their own. I write this knowing women are more likely to be pro-life than men are. The fact still remains that more than half of American men do not believe a woman should be able to abort on demand. These are the people who truly have no reproductive rights of their own.

Cases can be made that advances in our understanding of various things strengthen the argument in favor of progressive causes, like the normalization of homosexuality for instance. In the case of abortion, though, the opposite is true. Many babies are now viable at less than six months in the womb. Childbirth is less painful and less dangerous for mothers today than it has been at any other time in human history. Couples wait years for the opportunity to fork over tens of thousands of dollars to raise someone else's (white) infant.

And yet these grotesque women never miss an opportunity to praise the practice.


Parenthetically, my view is that abortion is the termination of a human life, but that not all life is of equal value, either objectively or subjectively. Who? Whom? looms large.

Objectively, terminating a pregnancy in the first trimester is less repulsive than doing so in the third trimester. Euthanizing an infant is less repulsive than euthanizing a twenty year-old, while euthanizing an octogenarian is less repulsive than destroying either of the fetuses, the baby, or the young adult. Subjectively, I care about abortion in Uganda about as much as I care about civil war in the Congo. Abortion inside my Dunbar Number, in contrast, is abhorrent, and in the case of my wife, unthinkable.

That said, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to require as a general practice both the woman getting the abortion and the man who impregnated her to sign off on it for it to be permitted.

GSS variables used: ABANY, YEAR(2000-2014), RACECEN1(1), SEX, CHILDS

28 comments:

Jokah Macpherson said...

I tell people who ask that I'm pro-abortion but anti-choice. It seems like a much-needed middle ground between blanket prohibition/criminalization and abortion on demand any time during a pregnancy being every woman's beautiful, sacred right.

sykes.1 said...

Abortion plainly has eugenic benefits, and I support it for that reason alone. Consider how much better off we would be if the number of underclass black males between 15 and 30 were cut in half or, better, 90%. That pretty much eliminates violent crime.

Sigma K said...

Only way to deal with these harridans. Russia has it right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivT-I-yxtdY&authuser=1

Theodoric said...

A husband's signoff could be required, but not that of an unmarried baby-daddy. The other side of the coin is that there should be no court ordered child support (or visitation, etc) unless the child was the product of a marriage. Basically, rights and obligations concerning children should be tied to marriage.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jokah,

Interesting phraseology.

Sykes,

Intuitively it seems to, although I'm more-or-less agnostic on Levitt's abortion-cut-crime theory. Steve Sailer empirically undermined it in a pretty convincing fashion. Ideally we could sell sterilization-for-welfare as a way to get an even better eugenic effect without the messiness.

Sigma K,

If they're going to act I don't see an advantage in those sorts of half-measures.

Theodoric,

Sensible. Politically tough because it ties marriage to procreation, something that isn't aligned with the current zeitgeist.

Anonymous said...

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Thank you!

JayMan said...

The fertility difference you're seeing is just the standard liberal-conservative fertility divide.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jayman,

No it's not. I hadn't checked when I did the post but looking at it subsequently it's clear that number of children is a predictor of abortion position even when political orientation is controlled for. It looks particularly strong among those on the left. Leftists without kids are a pro-choice haven. My instincts were right on this one.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Honestly the type of women who think abortion is just great are the type of women that I don't want having children anyway. It's a lot like activists for nudist colonies and swingers clubs. Sometimes Darwin has a way of making things work in unusual ways.

Personally I'm in favor of abortion but purely for eugenics reasons. All Planned Parenthoods should be relocated to the worst slums imaginable and for extra measure have them all be within the same one or two block radius as a check cashing joint, a methadone clinic, and a liquor store. Make it so people with something to lose have to weigh getting shot or robbed as a factor for getting one.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Heh, spin it as working to ensure that Planned Parenthood focuses on the most underserved communities in the country. Perfect.

TangoMan said...

no court ordered child support (or visitation, etc) unless the child was the product of a marriage.

We're never going to get perfect solutions on the abortion debate but this makes matter worse.

If the father of the child is not forced to pay child support that means that taxpayers are going to have to support that kid, in all likelihood. It was the father who had the benefit of sex, but what benefit did the taxpayers get from the mother?

Forcing the unmarried dads to pay child support is the best solution for a set of unappealing solutions.

Now on the general topic of abortion, I'm waiting for prenatial testing of homosexuality to arise. Hoo-boy, that'll set off a drama like we've never seen before. The Down's Syndrome people don't really have an effective political lobby, so they're facing something like a 98% abortion rate when detected by prenatal screening. One look at a Gay Pride Parade is likely going to get most parents to screen for homosexuality and then abort. That turn of events will seriously up-end the pro-choice coalition. They'll try to put the technology genie back into the bottle and fail and then they'll try to ban abortions altogether.

TWS said...

Unmarried fathers paying combined with welfare has given us sky rocketing bastardy. No payments unless for cause divorce. Force the woman and her family to pay for the bastards we'll have less of them.

chris said...

If you force men to support a woman and her children, regardless of how she behaves, then you incentivise whorish behaviour on the part of women. Child support should be abolished. Alimony should be reinstituted, but only awarded when the man is at fault, or if no fault divorce is allowed, only when the woman is not at fault.

This prevents men from abandoning women they marry and have children with, but also prevents adulterous women from getting cash and prizes for cheating on her husband, (and also prevents women from sleeping with cads who can knock her up and then flee/avoid jurisdiction. i.e. with foreigners or criminals).

Now you might get the situation where some kids will suffer reduced fitness as a result of a slut-mother. Well that will have to happen, because the alternative to those individual children suffering, is the group suffering, as the incentive structure that forms as a result of mandating child support even for whorish mothers, is one that will shift men from risking exploitation in a long term mating strategy by a whore to a short-term mating strategy where you can't be exploited. You can't cheat/cuckold a cad. This will be bad for society overall and will shift us from a high investing patriarchal/patrilineal society to a low investing matriarchal/matrilineal one. Men won't strive to be successful providers, they will strive to be flashy cads.

Just look at cad societies vs dad societies here for an idea:

http://the10000yearexplosion.com/human-cultural-diversity/

TangoMan said...

If you force men to support a woman and her children, regardless of how she behaves, then you incentivise whorish behaviour on the part of women.

First off, take responsibility for your own choices. This is the same line I give woman who complain about the guys who turn out to not be so great. Pick better women.

Secondly, it's not a woman and HER children, that child is yours.

Thirdly, look at how the world reacted to that staged shot of the drowned kid in Turkey. Open the borders, let the Muslims in.

From where I sit your call for purism is a waste of breath.

To get to the point where some little kid is living in a gutter because mom can't support him, is going to require the prerequisite of a society which has completely disavowed all social welfare redistribution schemes. Recall the very first groups trotted out as deserving sympathy and welfare benefits was widows and orphans.

The society we have today is not going to put new born babies, or young children, out on the street if there is no extended family to care for the child and mother. So if we're not going to do that, then the issue focuses on who pays. If you impregnated some woman, I can't really see why I should pay (as a taxpayer) and you should go free. It's your damn kid after all.

Isn't it clear that to get to your end-state of "not paying because of bad incentive structure" you first have to dismantle all the lesser essential welfare payment beneficiaries?

Ultimately it boils down to this - you got her pregnant, I didn't, so better that you pay instead of me.

chris said...

"Secondly, it's not a woman and HER children, that child is yours."

Correction. Certain to be half hers. % Uncertainty to be half yours. This fact affects how the dynamics play out for these incentive structures. (if you really think about these dynamics it is certainty and uncertainty of effort directed to your genes.)

One day I would like to write a program/mathematical proof for this. But I am lazy and am hoping if I talk about it enough, someone else will.

"First off, take responsibility for your own choices. This is the same line I give woman who complain about the guys who turn out to not be so great. Pick better women."

The same argument can be made for communism. Pick better co-op workers.

And the same problem arises as with communism. Provider/dad men can defect to societies that don't have these incentive structures and put their labour and capital there and outcompete the other societies that do have these incentive structures.

Or they can switch strategies from dad to cad and just avoid enforcement efforts, possibly by leaving the jurisdiction, or joining the underground economy, or even just tolerating jail.

It's why patriarchies out compete and end up conquering matriarchies.

And yes I agree that welfare payments should also be eliminated because they too encompass the same unsustainable dynamics.

And we have the perfect canary in the coal mine for this. Look at the black community and what unhinging female chastity from provision has done to bastardy and caddishness in that group since welfare payments were implemented. They went from 10% or 20% out of wedlock births to 70%+. And they have clearly adopted a cad culture/society where the men focus on being flashy instead of hard workers. This behavioral pattern is now slowly bleeding over to whites as well. What do you think will happen when whites reach such rates and need a similar level of welfare provisioning? The economy will collapse and everyone will suffer, the whole group will suffer, instead of just have the few suffering at the beginning to head of the unsustainable incentive structure.

But if you want me to be realistic for a second, I don't think any of my suggestions will be implemented. There is too much momentum in the opposite direction. What I think will happen instead is the West will decline relative to the rest of the world and the East, particularly Russia/Eastern Europe and China will rise relative to the West. Again, due to those societies not having these defective incentive structures, while we maintain them.

If you really want to get meta, then your argument that men just put up with things as they are makes perfect evolutionary sense as well. As if an agent in a game is committed to an unsustainable system they should try and get others to be responsible so the costs of those others' behaviour do not fall on them. But again, you arise at the same problem of defection or avoiding/tolerating enforcement by those others.

cfree said...

The government doesn't generally care about justice in the case of child support, only that a man pays. We have a system that generates more injustice than it tries to solve, hurting everyone. No sympathy for men siring bastards, but ultimately chris' point is right.

Audacious Epigone said...

Welfare payments--not child support or alimony, but actual government transfers--undercut any sort of responsibility-sharing arrangement between the mother and father. It's politically unfeasible (now), but welfare ending with impregnation rather than beginning with it seems like the best way to incentivize fewer dysgenic births while still allowing men to have reproductive rights of their own.

Tangoman,

"If you had the ability to choose whether your child was gay or straight prior to birth, would you choose the former?" is a great hypothetical I use all the time. It's a tough question that produces a lot of squirming. The easiest way out polemically is for the person being questioned to answer "gay", but that's obviously a bullshit answer and the dissonance is too much for anyone I've talked with to be able to answer that way.

Theodoric said...

TangoMan,
We have tried draconian child support for decades. What has the result been? How does this result compare to what we had before whores and bastards had the same rights as legitimate children? What about a married man having an affair? Of course, that's wrong, but how is it fair to reduce the standard of living of his wife and legitimate children (child support to baby momma=less available for them>? Has any society but ours given whores and bastards the same rights as wives and legitimate offspring?

TangoMan said...

Has any society but ours given whores and bastards the same rights as wives and legitimate offspring?

You're going to have a tough job convincing me that I (taxpayer) need to fund the bastard you sire because it's too unfair when society expects you to pay for the kid you brought into the world with the whore you fucked and that this obligation is causing trouble for you with your wife and family.

As I said above, before you can get to the stage of your bastard being given a 2nd class status, you need to dismantle the entire welfare state otherwise when you demote your bastard to 2nd class status, the bastard will simply be brought back up to 1st class status with the aid of my tax dollars.

What about a married man having an affair? Of course, that's wrong, but how is it fair to reduce the standard of living of his wife and legitimate children

AND HIM TOO.

Actions have consequences. The bastard you sired didn't ask to be brought into the world. When you have sex with your wife you assume a risk that a child will be conceived. When you have sex with your mistress you also take on the very same risk. Don't offput that risk on to me. You got the benefit of the romp in the hay, I didn't, you willingly assumed that risk, I didn't, so when you get unlucky and have that bastard on your hands, it's because you were the agent responsible for that outcome and I had no part in bringing that kid into the world.

As for your kids being made to suffer by a dilution of your resources. Tough luck. When going to work is a soul destroying endeavor and your boss is an asshole and assaults your dignity, many people deal with this situation by quitting their jobs. Well, you know what, when you quit your job in order to salvage some personal dignity then you're also harming your kids. Similarly, when you stay in a job you like and pass up promotions, then you're also denying your kid the benefit of those added resources. Life is not totally about welfare maximization for your kids. When you quit your job, your family has to tighten its belt until you find another job. Too bad for your kids having to suffer so that you can maintain a shred of dignity. When you work so that your wife can stay at home, again you deny your kids the benefit of added resources. This formulation of yours doesn't work well, in order to enhance the lifestyle of your legitimate children, you are going to impoverish your child with another woman. Hey, both the legitimate and the illegitimate children are both yours, the difference between them is their mothers. Don't offload your responsibility onto me. No one forced you to fuck your mistress. With your freedom to step outside your marriage comes the responsibility of looking after your own kids.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Welfare payments--not child support or alimony, but actual government transfers--undercut any sort of responsibility-sharing arrangement between the mother and father. It's politically unfeasible (now), but welfare ending with impregnation rather than beginning with it seems like the best way to incentivize fewer dysgenic births while still allowing men to have reproductive rights of their own.

Yep. There was an article written a few years ago where they interviewed a few young white moms who decided it was better to be a single mom than to marry the father of their children. The reason is that they got more government benefits being a single mom. Their children's fathers were usually "between jobs", working for minimum wage, or better yet, they didn't know who the father was. I thought it was an interesting story because it was surprising (at the time, I was still very much bluepilled until recently) how white women were now emulating the worst groups in society. The article celebrated of course how empowered these young women were for not turning to a man to provide for them without a trace of irony.

Dan said...

Paul Ryan seems to be lining up behind Trump's wall. I guess he just needed a father figure to guide him.

I still don't trust Ryan but hopefully he has no principles.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

It's empowering in a sense--empowering at our fucked up, cucked up collective pleasure, but biologically empowering.

Dan,

The last 18 months have been a blast. I've never been a skeptic about Trump's intention to build a wall (and don't care about how it's "paid for" since that's all smoke and mirrors anyway) and look forward, with great relish, in rubbing my many enemies' faces in it. Heartiste said he'd make a pilgrimage to it once it's constructed. It good be a fun thing to have an alt right gathering at some location along the wall once constructed.

Paul Ryan can't stand up to Trump on that if (as he is) Trump is serious about it. He has a clear voter mandate and it's popular with the public especially Republicans.

TangoMan said...

Paul Ryan is though reassuring DACA illegals that no deportations are going to happen.

This guy needs to be taken down a few notches.

Trump's take-over of the party is not yet complete. If the Ryan wing of the party is obstructionists, Trump needs to tailor some messages for the voters in Ryan's district and get Ryan out of office.

All it would take is for one or two high profile cucks to be the target of Trump's wrath and the rest of the cucks will cuck and submit to the new order.

Theodoric said...

Trump should turn part of the wall into a memorial-put the names of American killed by illegals on the bricks.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The 2018 midterms should see a rise of Trump Republicans getting into office. I also see many of the current GOP obstructionists changing their tune if there is a primary threat. There will be some who will be #NeverTrump to the bitter end and those people deserve to get the boot. We may also see "Mini Trumps" running for offices at lower levels. Overall we should see an influx of Trump Republicans these next several years. Neocons will find it increasingly harder to find a home and will likely begin defecting to the Democrats where they won't have much of a home either but find their foreign policy more palatable.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

AE,

Trump has already committed to deporting millions of illegals via removal of "Catch and Release" for felony crimes committed in the USA.

Consider -- 10% of illegals voted. Fraudulant voting is a felony.

Most illegals commit identity theft/use via fraudulant SSN or other ID, that is a federal felony.

And a hell of a lot of illegals file income tax returns for scamed income tax returns. That is a felony.

These three classes of crime likely cover mpre than 50% of the illegl alien population.

Simply running down people and charging them for those crimes, then deporting them immediately will cover millions.

There is a reason why former AG Holder told Gov Jerry Brown to take the "Illegal tag" out of california's driver's liscence data base.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

AE,

Mexico will pay for the wall many times over.\

Consider this phrase --

"Mexican Border Wall Toll Authority"

Make every vehicle coming from Mexico pay a toll and use the money to build the wall higher and stronger over time and make it a Federal "Self-licking ice cream cone" that provides jobs for lots of Americans and a contractor base paying off deserving congressmen in the various committees in charge of the funding stream.