It's a Handmaid's Tale World After All

Woodchuck djv at bedford.net
Thu Nov 6 22:05:10 PST 2003


On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, jbone at place.org wrote:

>
> Woodchuck writes:
>
> > RossO wrote:
> >
> >> I'm sorry, was there a winking emoticon that I missed in there? I'm
> >> not
> >> familiar enough with your writing style (or personal positions) to
> >> understand if you really think that people who support abortion rights
> >> are pursuing a path to indiscriminate capital powers.
> >
> > It's a shorthand.  The legal power to kill is the definition of the
> > state, sometimes euphemized as "a monopoly on the use of force".
> > Abortionists want state power for more than just killing their babies.
> > Abortionists want abortions for more than just the killing, too.
> > It's mostly about power. (They say so quite openly.)
>
> Okay, I'm a bit confused here.  Woody, help me out with a bit of
> clarification.  You're saying that you're opposed to abortion because
> it represents a delegation of already-questionable "authority" by the
> state to kill to humans?

That's not what I meant, but it's something I tend to believe and
suspect to be true.  I don't like a state that kills its people,
but that is the nature of states.  So I want it mitigated by due
process and principles closely related to A-S common law.  Casual
killing leads to a bad state.

> By itself, that's not a bad argument.  It still fails to deal with the
> fundamental question of "what's a human" but the argument itself seems
> pretty solid.

A human is a "rights-bearer".  (Circular, I know, but "rights-bearer"
has some "operant" implications.)

> For the rest, though - "abortionists want state power for more than
> just killing their babies" - (a) I'm not sure that's very well
> supported by anything --- please provide refs?  and (b) note that
> you're using loaded terminology there.  What's a "baby?"

A baby is a very young human, except when it's inconvenient to think
that way. (Female cognitive dissonance.  Men at least *may* have
the built-in biological instinct to kill the babies of rival men,
and can fall back on this to create cognitive harmony.  Females
seem not to have this instinct, but rather seem to have a tropism
to babies, even those of foreigners or enemies. [Courts tend to
convict men who kill babies for murder, but to judge females doing
likewise to be insane.  Tend, I said :-)] Thus are females involved
in abortion "conflicted" [sic], and many are subject to long term
mental problems, so I read and observe.  They have to convince
themselves that it wasn't a baby, but "products of conception" or
a "parasite" or "tissue".  I think they're following a self-defeating
track, it's much easier to excuse yourself for murder or abandonment
than it is to convince yourself that a baby isn't a baby.)

Well, there is no unloaded term for whatever it is that is "terminated",
"murdered", "excised", "removed" or "cancelled" in the procedure
in question (late term abortion).  So I picked one of the loaded
ones for the hell of it, (not just for this thread, it's the term
I use habitually.) "Products of conception" is the funniest term,
"baby" the most provocative.  It can be interesting to use them
interchangeably in the same conversation.  Done over a period of
time it can desensitize the speaker and listener to the political
loading/trigger words.

The abortionists (I mean "pro-abortion political groups", not the
doctors, pharmacists, nurse-practitioners and midwives, "abortionist"
can no longer be politico-correctly used to describe them) may give
the appearance of being single-issue political lobbies, and may
even be so, but they are not composed at leadership, sponsor, or
foot-soldier levels of single-issue people.  (The same is true of
the anti-abortionists.) If you go over NARAL material, you'll see
things about abortion.  If you go over NOW or DNC or such material,
you'll see more about the politico-social aspects of abortion, (at the
DNC level feminism is part of a still larger "diversity" issue).  The
history of this is checkered, ranging from the Sanger people with
their vague dreams of eugenics (still the largest "abortion providers"
in the US, I believe) through the early Bol'sheviks, the post-Stalinist
"malaise" period of Communism, the social engineering of late Maoism,
and our own latter-day conflict.  I do not mention the H-name to avoid
Godwinism, but they were closer to old-fashioned Sangerism than to
the Bol'shevik reasons.

In our present case, I suggest examination of the usual arguments
other than the "rape/mother's health" "scientific" one; there are
two political arguments, one a libertarian one: the state has no
power here, period, the second a leftist-feminist one: "woman's
body, woman's rights".  Both of these depend on a non-human definition
of the products of conception, the libertarian completely depends
on that; the feminist one only incidentally and tactically.  The
libertarian case can be disposed of by referring it to the "Define
a Human Committee", but the feminist one is overtly political and
fraught with interesting byways and issues.

When I say that pro-abortion forces use abortion for more than just
getting some right to evacuate with extreme prejudice the products
of unwanted conception I mean that they use this issue ("leverage
it") to further other political goals which their constituency to
a large degree share: so-called "feminism", left-wing "democracy",
welfare stateism, anti-religion, anti-corporatism.  (Not a complete
list).  The anti-abortionists fnord use the ground up fnord bodies
fnord of innocent fnord pre-born fnord babies fnord to further goals
which they have in common that are unconnected to birth control per
se.  I hope the fnords were more obvious that time.

To point up a problem of the feminist position, namely that they
use a "human definition" that is contingent on political circumstances,
let us indulge in some plausible examples.  If an abortionist
performs an abortion on a 14 year-old retarded girl against her
will, such as it might be, it is murder (in many states), and this
is supported, as far as I know, by NOW and other communist-inspired
[Friedan: former CPUSA editor] organizations, the grounds being
"woman's body/woman's right".  But murder is unlawful killing of a
human -- only sensible theory for murder.  If on the other hand,
the 14 year old retarded girl wants the baby killed, the very same
people declare that it is her unassailable, unmodifiable, completely
unrestricted right to have the job done, and preferably at state expense.

But if she does a knitting needle or calisthenics job on herself,
bears the foetus, piths it with scissors, vac's little Cody's brains
into the Hoover, and then mulches the rest in a blender to make
face cream, it becomes again murder.  Is a woman's vagina some sort
of "jubilee city" for murder?  Different laws there than in the
rest of the universe? If she acted quick and pithed and vacked Li'l
Jenny before Li'l Jenny's ankle was clear of the vaginal opening,
would it still be murder? What if she stuffed Li'l Jenny's foot
back up in the hole, whould it be murder then?  It is a *political*
question.  In a political question, one must inquire about motives
and ends, and effects on others.  There enter "stakeholders" [gag-sic]
besides mother and foetus, that's why a matter is political.

I believe this to be the sole instance of lawful killing in Anglo-
Saxon jurisprudence in which the pure whim of a retarded minor can
decide the status (human or not) and hence the life of a second
party.  In most states you go to jail for pithing, brain-vacking
and then grinding up a fucking puppy, right?  This foetus is not
even up to the level of a lizard or toad -- more like a squash or
turnip, in fact -- under the "law", if some 14 yo drooler says so.
Go out in your yard with a litter of kittens and put them down with
a hammer (more humane than a pith and vac, consult veterinary ethical
euthanasia/sacrifice guidelines -- you can't ethically pith and vac
a rat) and see how long you stay free.  Is that a "medical question"?
Or have a pith-'n'-vac done in your yard on some "late term products
of conception".  Invite the neighbors.  See what they say.

It (baby/tissue growth/parasite/*symbol of male virility*/...) is
human in one case and not in the other, the sole distinguishing
feature of the cases being the *intent* of a person viewed otherwise
under law as incompetant to make decisions even about her diet or
clothing.  But she can kill that baby (so some double-digit percentage
of the population, large enough that they control the senate, house,
white house, SCotUS and thirty some state governments, insist on
calling it) without any review or supervision whatsoever.  Now that
is a *political* decision, wanted by someone for a larger political
purpose.  I do not want politicians first sequestering (inventing)
this power and then delegating it to political favorites for social
engineering or other purposes.

This extreme abortion position is the result of the NOW and NARAL
stridently repeated view that abortion is an unmodifiable, absolute
right of mothers.  (No other Euro country has that position, as far
as I know.  As far as I knew several years back when I looked into
it, to be precise.  Normally, a minor child must have medical
necessity or parental consent, and a married woman likewise medical
necessity and husband's consent.  Some even require a concubine or
mistress to have the father's consent, as in a case of adoption.
None have "abortion on demand by minors".  Even in Holland, a
pregnant single woman must wait and be counselled for a period
before her pregnancy is aborted.  Third-trimester abortions are not
permitted in a number of "advanced" "progressive" countries, as far
as I know.  Do note all the disclaimers in this parenthesis. I
welcome correction. By Euro country, I exclude former Communist
states. I am unfamiliar with their current abortion laws.)

No other Anglo-Saxon right, not even the right of an unquestionably
human adult to live, is absolute. (Witness the gallows.) Assigning
this strange power to women is called, over and over, "empowering"
them.  Since it is strange, foreign, bizarre, unpopular and arguably
repugnant and evil, it requires state power to maintain it, at the
minimum it requires militant groups of zealous women. It has now
been deemed to require the power to kill opponents. (See recent
legislation, involving state deadly force used to facilitate
abortions, and death penalties being handed out to those few
anti-abortionists who are not hypocrites.)

The abortionists fund and otherwise enable powerful political parties
-- notably, the Democrats.  The Democrats could very well not
maintain their power without women voters, and women voters are
powerfully swayed by organizations (NOW, NEA etc) that are also
zealous for abortion.  Moreover, the Democrats are not separate
from NOW, NEA, etc, and favor abortion out of conviction, not
necessity.  Thus the Democrat agenda, whatever it is, is favored
by abortionists and vice-versa.  Abortion "rights" are used to rally
Democrats and to bring non-Democrats into the Democrat fold to get
their way.  (The mirror-image applies to anti-abortionists. I'm
trying to avoid being called a "partisan" again.)

Abortion -- controversial, absolute, widespread abortion -- is a
Gramscian tool to wreck the society by wrecking the family, providing
a way to infiltrate the sticky pseudopods of the Total State into
the tiniest nook and cranny.  The attack is three-fold:  to bring
medical practices more closely under state supervision (prepartory
to larger "actions", including state-run medical "triage" (Clintonism)
and finally "culling the herd"), secondarily to politicize women
with a far-left irrational core ideology (easily manipulated,
therefore; one can *always* manipulate unreason), thirdly to weaken
the "archreactionary counter-revolutionary centers of wreckers and
bandits" (Stalin-speak) of the family and the churches.  The Gramscian
seeks to create the utterly alienated man, whose only real relationship
is that of a dependent of the state.  %s/Gramscian/Fabian/g if it
pleases.  The Simmered Frog Crew.

There is a reason that the redder the person, the more they favor
abortion over other birth control means.  That reason is on the one
hand, it is divisive and wrecking, on the other it "empowers" the
abortionist by bloodying her hands, a sort of "shared-atrocity
initiation/rite-de-passage."  ("Jenny's First Abortion: A Sensitive
Coming-of-Age Story of a Modern Wymyn.")  I wish I had cable, you
can see crap like that on the wymyn's channels.

Sorry for all the blathering.

> jb

Dave
-- 
        In each of us, there burns a soul of a woodchuck.
        In every generation a few are chosen to prove it.



More information about the FoRK mailing list