Breaking: Life wins as Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade
- This topic has 36 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 6 months ago by
.
-
why the fuck do these women think the men who push for natalism are the same men in favour of promiscuity
are they just retarded or something
@FallenOmegaStar I’m in favor of natural selection. Eugenic models usually require the government selecting who is fit to live and who isn’t. Inevitably, due to human’s tribalist nature, this will lead to the in-power group attempting to use eugenics to reduce the number of people from groups they dont like. I.e. how eugenics were used against Blacks in the US or how it was done by the Nazis.
This has tarnished the original idea of Eugenics from the 1800s, which correctly stated that humans, now that we no longer have any danger from predators, most diseases, most natural catastrophies, hunger, etc, have to find some way to re-implement nature’s selection mechanism.In past centuries, there was still human evolution. In fact, people in the northern hemisphere developed higher levels of intelligence as a result of harsher selection pressures. It became necessary to store grains and other foodstocks for the longer winters (especially during the ice age). The need to plan ahead, ration food, etc led to natural selection favoring higher intelligence. Just as the lack of sunlight selected in the North selected for lighter skin in order for the body to produce enough Vitamin D.
Throughout history, there remained some evolutionary pressure. A competent farmer was able to feed more offspring than an incompetent one. A competent smith or carpenter could trade his skill for more wealth and food than a beggar or vagrant. Even racism led to selection pressure. In medieval and feudal Europe, Jews were discriminated against in that they weren’t allowed to own land or do manual labor (which at the time was not considered lowly like today, but a privilege). They were forced to find professions that utilized the mind – finance (which conversely was forbidden for Christians during most of the middle ages), business, medicine, science, etc. This led to an increase in average intelligence due to extreme selection pressure.
The original idea of eugenics was just: In nature, adversity leads to selection for better ‘fitness’ or adaptation. Without this mechanism, humanity will stagnate or regress.
This can be observed in all welfare state nations, where since the advent of the welfare state, the productive have subsidized the breeding of the unproductive through taxes and redistribution of wealth. Inevitably, this leads to a growing number of economically marginalized people dependent on government handouts, and unable to compete in a service economy. It leads to a widening of the wealth gap, with only people at the very top still able to effortlessly have children, and the people at the bottom using children as a paycheck, and the middle class taxed to extinction.
Sound familiar? The evidence is everywhere. The left would have you believe all of it is due to people being classicist, racist, sexist, whatever. No, it’s due to their own policies which went against natural law. No more can you fly an aircraft against the laws of physics than you can build a society against the laws of biology. Going against Nature (or reality or god if you will, call it what suits you) will ALWAYS fail.Of course, as has been the case throughout history, anything government does, it does badly. So when government does selection, it’s not the individual merit based selection of society, but rather tribalism, group based discrimination. That’s how you end up with the scumbag Nazis fancying themselves fit to select who should and shouldn’t breed – or live.
So why then am I in favor of abortion from eugenic standpoint? Because its not forced upon people. People aren’t selected by some bureaucrat or mad leader and forcibly marched into an abortion clinic. They aren’t economically sanctioned to either. It’s a purely individual choice. It’s people with a fundamental moral defect saying “I don’t think my DNA should exist”. The selection mechanism is done on an individual basis, just as in nature. Looking at it purely from a perspective biological function, the woman aborting her child (again, excluding medical and rape) has such a strong disregard for life, that it may constitute a danger for the survival of the species itself. Imagine people like that in power? People who would kill their own offspring at a whim? Imagine them having access to nuclear codes. Nature has mechanisms to weed out dangerously defective individuals. You can observe this even in the animal kingdom, where deformed or sickly young are often left to die by parents. Why? Not because they are cruel or heartless, but because the offspring mutation or defect endangers the survival of the species.
That’s what it’s all about. Survival of the species. Nature is trying to correct some mistakes.
And you want government to prevent that? Again? Hasn’t government done enough harm?
And yes, science shows that morality IS in fact inherited insofar as all character traits are inherited. No one teaches you to be quick to anger, fearful or brave, compassionate or selfish. Just like no one teaches or raises you to have specific sexual preferences. Twin studies have shown that even religiosity is genetic. Humans are not as disconnected from biology as we fancy ourselves.
“Weeks after Texas passed their abortion laws, most women in that state just stopped getting abortions”
And you think that’s a good thing? I estimate 90% of them are single mothers, and they’re doing it out of laziness and because they government subsidizes their bad decisions by bleeding honest hard working people dry, who then have to put off having a family of their own until their mid 40s, because they’re taxed to death.
Yes, very moral.
And they’ll raise their kids to be democrats, so abortion will be back with a vengeance.The morality of a law is measured in its outcome. The outcome of this will be terrible. As always when government goes against nature.
Culture is certainly not downstream of politics. On the contrary. Vknid is right, you can’t legislate morality while maintaining freedom of opinion or speech.
If you want to prevent abortions, change what leads to people wanting them.
Most women get abortions because they got pregnant to try and hook a guy into a relationship (with some even going so far as to steal semen from a used condom), or because they are “not ready for a baby”, meaning they either put their career before family or think they can do better than the guy they are currently with.
All of these are results of societal and cultural failure. 1. Family law allows women to weaponize pregnancy. 2. The economy is so fvcked that being a housewife is no longer an economically viable path in life 3. Promiscuity and hypersexualization instilled by a rotting culture from an early age. And 4. Too many scumbags have with no moral constitution have been bred, courtesy of 100 years of welfare state. You reap what you sow.A return to morality will only happen by improving the fabric of society – the people. How do you improve people? By following natural law: positive selection mechanisms. Nature has already provided the answers to all our problems. We just need to take off our ideological blindfolds and see them.
In practice, do we need eugenics for this? No. We need natural selection. How does one have natural selection in a post-industrial society without natural dangers? Economic selection. How do you ensure economic selection is fair und unbiased? Free market capitalism without corruption, cronyism, etc.
Abolish the welfare state. Force people to provide for their own offspring. Make getting a vasectomy mandatory before collecting welfare for more than a year (exceptions for the disabled, people who suffered from an accident, etc).Make the economy darwinistic / meritocratic again so that merit and virtue lead to wealth, whereas failure and sloth lead to poverty. Once vice stops being a business model, culture will change. Once culture changes, values will change.
That would fix abortion more efficiently than any ban. And more long term.@Vknid I should have clarified what I meant a little more, individual liberty is of course important. But I doubt the men who thought of the concept of individual autonomy ever imagined that that this would eventually translate as “the right to commit irresponsible and self-destructive actions” while everyone else just stands by and lets it happen.
If someone in your family were slitting their wrists or taking drugs you’d of course put a stop to it, I think that same sort of care should be extended to your countrymen. That’s what it means to be Nationalist, in my view.
To put it another way, when laws are enforced, it sends a strong, clear message to the populace that something is morally wrong, and it disincentivizes them from doing it. When something is legal, the morality becomes a lot more ambiguous, and if there’s no legal repercussions, people are more likely to do it (or at least, be more easily persuaded into doing it).
Now, granted, the law isn’t perfect nor absolute, and we can debate endless back on forth on moral relativism (i.e. just because something is legal/illegal doesn’t always mean it’s moral/immoral. But this is another debate). But if you want to proudly say, “we’re a Christian country,” then you need Christian laws so it rings true. You cannot have cultural values without them being married to state values. A divorce between the two creates the kind of society we’re living in now.
I understand your trepidation of crossing the line into outright tyranny – There is that danger. Which is why we need sensible people who can look at things with a leeway of impartiality, examine them on a case-by-case basis, and enforce the law only to the extent in proportion to the offense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
