A Perspective on Abortion From Today

Senator Ladybug’s anti-abortion crusade is the totalitarian camel’s nose in the freedom tent. He’s blackmailed into doing it by leftist totalitarian criminals. He’s their creature.

Most urgently, the principle of self-determination is paramount and is being attacked by anyone who both:

  1. Denies that state of nature which gave rise to the Cambrian Explosion’s creation of species diversity: individual male intrasexual selection as well as female choice of sires for her children.
  2. Renders it impractical for mutually consenting adults to form their own government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

The individual sovereignty of #1 (the only honest definition of individual sovereignty) implies not only infanticide but also individual enforcement of preferences against infanticide. You don’t like it that some mother is killing her children? Kill her if she be the head of house or kill the head of house to get to her as head of house and then kill her.

You don’t like that state of nature? Very well, then we are now in the realm of fixing the bug in the Treaty of Westphalia that gave a bad name to the Nation State: War for “living space”, including preventing people escaping regimes that will not permit its men to enforce their preferred immigration policy:


My own preference is to live among consenting adults who exclude from their environment not just women who abort but who use birth control and also exclude men who are “sneaky betas” including not just rapists in the standard sense, but rape-by-fraud-artistry, which is a predominate form of rape nowadays. Both senses of rape are the primary cause of “justifiable” abortion.


@jabowery gets it right, abortion is a tool of the left to split the right:


From the article: “Abortion rights could be the populist cause of the next decade or so …”

Hmmm! No!! Not really. There are limited numbers of women who see abortion as the defining sacrament of their feminist religion, just as there are limited numbers of women & men who see abortion as always out-and-out murder. And the great bulk of the population is spread over the interval between those extremes, mostly seeing abortion as distasteful, unpleasant, and unfortunate … but sometimes the least bad option.

The real populist (i.e. strongly supported by a majority of the population) cause of the next decade will be either:
(a) an anti-conscription, anti-war movement among both young women & young men if the war-mongers in the DC swamp lead us into that kind of disaster, or
(b) an anti-government reaction against the economic disaster which our Betters have created, even if they manage to avoid war.


Abortion will always be the populist cause for unmarried women with college degrees. They are single issue fanatics.


To answer my question, paraphrasing your response (and thank you!):
“Joe” does NOT think, or feel, anything about the zygote.

He thinks it wasn’t his fault. He thinks maybe she’s lying. He thinks of the economic consequences. He thinks, well, in any event, it’s her problem, it’s not my decision.

I get all that.

But then, Why would “Joe” go march around in front of an abortion clinic holding up signs if bloody fetuses in the faces of other women impregnated by other men, yelling “Don’t kill your baby!” Or conversely, why would Joe stand on a street corner asking people to sign a petition supporting ‘a woman’s right to choose”? ( I just passed a gent like that, my contemporary at least, in Boulder Co yesterday)

And why would Joe’s vote—either way— be at all influenced by this issue?

But Y’know, I think your response did answer the above question as t why men are so passive about the fact that they have no decision making power over the zygote:

When it comes down to a personal decision, THEIR zygote:
They like it that way.

And again , I get that.


If I am following your train of thought, Hypatia, the question which you are pondering is – Why should any man care enough about the abortion of babies fathered by other men to protest against abortion?

The man’s concern might seem like an irrelevancy. After all, our rapidly declining society has developed into a gynocracy. Thus, the opinion of a mere man is irrelevant – the decisions lie entirely with the woman. (We can leave to another day the question of whether gynocracy is a cause or an effect of our indisputable societal decline).

Clearly, societies could be organized very differently from what we have chosen today. In Roman times, the pregnant woman was effectively compelled to carry the baby to term, and then the father would decide whether to accept the newborn or to expose him/her on a hillside in the manner of Romulus and Remus. The woman in those days had as little say in the matter as the man does today – but it is a reasonable guess that many of the mothers cared.

Why should today’s man care (father or not), given that women have taken the burden from him? Perhaps the answer is that people care deeply about all kinds of things.

Europeans care deeply enough about soccer teams to kill each other over the matter. People – women & men – care deeply enough about capital punishment to protest vehemently against the practice. Against that background, there is really nothing unusual about some men protesting abortion which they believe is morally wrong, even though those men are not responsible for the women getting pregnant in the first place.


You keep sliding around my point: as I said some while back, men seem to take the issue passionately but not personally. Or, personally but only in the abstract. There is something still unsaid…but I can’t articulate it, either.


It might be more accurate to say that some men are passionate about abortion – but most don’t seem to see abortion as a key issue. The majority of men probably have an opinion on the topic, but for social reasons it is not something to get too loud about.

What I notice – anecdote, not data – is that back in the old days when a group of men would meet at some business function and then go out for a beer together, the conversation would usually roam over sports, hunting, fishing, movies. More recently, a major topic is often about how their ex-wives took them to the cleaners, but with most of the passion focused on the ex-wives weaponizing their children against them rather than on the ex-wives taking all the money.

Lots of men do feel strongly about their own children. It is then hardly surprising that a few of them would become passionate about abortion.


I know men love their children. The question is about their sperm. I think we’ve reached the bottom, or top, of the ladder of inquiry here.
CW’s essay is a sane perspective on the issue and one with which I think most Americans agree. Let’s just hope against hope that Trump can keep the issue de-fused until the election. I’m happy that he seems to understand the importance of doing so.


I think Trump gave a good response recently. It’s up to the states and their legislators.

Arizona needs to repeal the 1864 law.

To @Hypatia :
I appreciate the views of a female Trump supporter on abortion. Abortion is my area of ignorance


I think you’re comparing two separate men as the same.

I have read that 80 percent of young woman are having sex with just 10 percent of the young men. Most of these 10 percent don’t care about abortion. They are not at the abortion clinic.

The other 90 percent of men have some distribution of what they think about abortion. From they believe life starts at conception that the only purpose of sex is for conception of life to partial birth abortion is ok. I have no idea about the distribution and it will change over time as their hormones don’t drive behavior and thought.

Those that believe life starts at conception will be devastated if a woman aborted their baby if he even learns about it. Some of those at the abortion center may actually be passionate because they lost their baby.

I am not sure where or how you concluded that these men are not extremely impacted by having what they consider their baby aborted. But as Gavin pointed out they are completely neutered within society.

Men may differ than woman. They don’t assume that making a fuss about their desires is the proper or successful approach. It is actually taken as a negative among men. Don’t be a b*%#*. Means don’t be like a woman. They may confide in a close friend and the close friend will say something like: “Man that sucks.” Followed by something I best not type but is derogatory toward woman.

If a man could do something equivalent to aborting the other man’s baby he better be prepared to have his teeth knocked out or be beaten close to death. But men don’t do that to women. You have to suck it up. If men even talked to other men like woman do, they better be prepared for physical conflict. At least that reflects the men I know. We didn’t grow up with the idiotic idea of toxic masculinity.

In summary. It is ok for men to stand for what they believe. It is ok for a man to punch out another man for an offense. It is not ok to complain about your situation. It is not ok to punch out a woman for an offense.



1 Like

Previously you brought an example of when a man finds out about a pregnancy.

What a man does isn’t necessarily aligned with what he believes. This is like asking what will a soldier do when the shooting starts. A man may believe it is wrong to run, may believe he will never run and then run. I don’t think you can know what you will do unless you have been shot at. But if a man would run, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t believe it is wrong to run. It means he didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to stick to what he believes. This is how character works, you don’t know whether you have the character to do as you believe under difficult circumstances until you do it. Some may run because they don’t care about anything but themselves and some may run because their character broke in a moment of stress

In other words you do not know what a man thinks or feels in this situation simply because of their actions. Who knows maybe they do something they regret and end up offing themselves or turning to drugs.


No, @Mettelus i do NOT know. What men think/ feel is exactly what I am assiduously trying to find out, here and elsewhere. And I thank you and the other gents here for your very thoughtful and “diggin’ down” comments.
But I will say I can’t buy this ‘men are neutered” argument. Yes, the present statutory and case law totally favors the mom, leaves it all up to her—but, anybody can take to the streets. Look at the Pussyhat march. Look at these assholes, male and female, in keffiyehs chanting “We are Hamas!” Look for that matter at the once-annually March for Life. And as I said, behind every individual statistic in the abortion “Holocaust”, there is a man, a father.


I’ve been following the back 'n forth on this issue, not really knowing what to say. As with most all generalizations as to what “men” think or feel, there is a lot of variation. I find myself thinking - I do this a lot lately - of the historical context in which issues are joined. I don’t think there’s any doubt that traditional “masculine” roles and attitudes have been in retreat for around 50 years. I’ve said before I think we are living in a time of historical payback for inequalities which were direct results of male physical prowess since our kind first stood erect. This physical power was, obviously, a main source of control over others from family on up to kingdoms - as a rule (with exceptions).

Nowadays, I think, men are routinely denigrated as they have for several generations - in sitcoms, adverts, movies, most everywhere. Traditional male behavior in boys is being medicated out of existence as a form of psychopathology. A new myth has been constructed and is now unopposed. It begins and ends with “cis male, hetero… . Bad”. The responses of men I think, falls into three unequal categories. Some go along with it and happily voice their fides and mea culpas (perhaps in hopes of ‘scoring’); some just stay quiet and keep their heads down; some (likely few) take up opposing causes, like anti-abortion.

IMO, those who do the latter are exhibiting psych mechanisms in common with SJW’s on the left. Those latter get an actual rush from ginning up the real religious fervor of their (believed) morally superior cause and selves; the effect is augmented exponentially in mobs as evidenced by the wild-eyed, spittle-laced exhortations, ubiquitous among SJW’s. Naturally, such mob behavior - standard for the left - is impermissible on the right. This translates into police protecting pro-abortion mobs hurling invective and the occasional brick at the kneeling, peacefully and quietly praying anti-abortion protestors, who are arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the draconian laws which have been passed to protect leftist sacraments. Some men may be seen on both sides.

This situation - the diminishment of men qua men - tends to limit (often self-imposed) men’s outward and visible political expressions. For a man who wishes to oppose the predominant leftist political orthodoxy, being vocally anti-abortion, I think is “caring so much” in the sense @Hypatia means. Here, again, we find ourselves having recourse to fundamental biological realities. Women live with the biological consequences of carrying a pregnancy as well as overwhelming nurturing biological instincts, which were and likely remain essential to the continuation of our species. Of course, saying so is a mortal sin in the Church of the Left (though my soul is not the only part of me in jeopardy for saying so).

These biological realities, I think, account for most men’s general distance from being ‘active’ as to the issue of abortion. Biological reality meant that, after insemination by an entity hard-wired to deposit sperm as far and wide as possible, the briefly-satisfied fellow went right back to hunting/gathering/fighting/planting/harvesting and little else until some powerful new software was installed to effect some new “wiring” in software; men’s aggression, for instance, was ameliorated. Their underlying interests and attention to things - not so much. To the extent men hold political positions - and history shows clearly - that passionate and transformative political advocacy, particularly that surviving in written form - was predominantly male.

In short, this long tradition of caring about fundamental matters political, I believe, is a pale remnant of earlier political activity and expressions of men - like those of the Founders. You may have noticed these great men put their “lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor” on the line for their moral and political beliefs. Maybe that’s why some men care so much about abortion. If you’ll pardon the pun, the biological status, the moral nature and the value of a human embryo/fetus/baby, is seminal to one’s understanding of humanity and construction of society.


The discussion is at several levels:

  • at an individual level: abortion is sometimes a highly desirable choice, especially for women
  • at the societal level: wide use of abortion is a bad choice, normalization of abortion is unhealthy

Maybe we can agree on that?

With that, we can then start wondering about what makes most sense? Banning abortion outright seems like a divisive political proposition. Good policy typically has 70%+ support.

Countries and states can pick whatever policy they agree on - and outsiders meddling and trying to memetically colonize them without understanding the local culture are a nuisance.


Can we turn the question around and ask – What do women think/feel about abortion?

If I may take a guess here, the women who are opposed to abortion are like the men who are opposed to abortion – they see abortion as a moral issue, the unjustified killing of a human. The passions aroused by such moral issues are very difficult for the non-involved to understand. Who can understand what it is about the Sunni/Shia divide that has resulted in Moslems murdering each other over the centuries down to the present day? But such moral issues are very important to the people who take them seriously.

But what about the women who support abortion, all the way to partial-birth abortion? This is so out of step with the image of women as the caring, nurturing gender that it requires an explanation. Do some women rebel against the burden of the gift of life that only they can bestow? Do some irresponsible women want to engage in casual sex without having to bother about contraception? Do some responsible women want the safety net of the availability of abortion which they hope never to have to use?

Whatever the reason(s) … and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive … there is no doubt that abortion has become a great wedge issue for those who would Divide & Rule us all. Who are those evil people behind the curtain?


Dear CW, a couple things: the first (minor) one is I think the comedic denigration of males which you mention was like the cat and mouse cartoons: a matter of rooting for the under,uh, mouse. Men had all the power. I always think of The Marriage of Figaro by the subversive 18th century playwright Beaumarchais : yes, Susannah and Figaro are smart and clever and they run rings around the obtuse Count Almaviva—but, um, where would these two servants be if the Almavivas turned them off without a reference?
The biggie is your remark about males’ biological program being to roam around spreading their seed far and wide. Nailed it. Potency for potency’s sake.
Since the site frowns on multiple separate responses. Let me also reply to my valued interlocutor @Gavin here.
What do women think about abortion?
I can only speak personally. And I also have to tell you that I got married at 20 and my BMD was/is my sole paramour. So there’s that.
But in my 20s I was just infuriated by men having this sanctimonious, minatory attitude toward the issue. It was NONE of their effing business,unless they were the father, so: butt OUT! I hafta say I can still understand that feeling.
At that point in my life, would I have aborted a fetus myself? Quite probably. I had another year of college to go and my BMD was still facing internship and residency. But the issue didn’t arise— even though I couldn’t stand birth control pills, they gave me a slight but perceptible MOUSTACHE fuggod’s sake!
I reckon I didn’t think much about the issue later on; we were busy. Then I conceived. Two false starts, nothing traumatic, very early—but, not having borne yet, I can’t say I gave much thought to the li’l homunculi themselves. I was told their genetic makeup was such that 8:weeks was their lifespan. So I was happy to have hosted them, hoped they enjoyed their brief mortal sojourn. But, although everybody acted like I should be devastated—I wasn’t, really.
Ok then I conceived and bore my big (even in utero,) healthy, perfect daughter. And, now that I have carried nd borne, would I personally never abort?
As long as the fetus appeared healthy : NO.
But Y’know, I can’t say that, if I found out the baby was defective, mentally, physically…I think even now, I would think of the entirety of its life, and the remainder of my life.
Because I’ll tell you, even though you’ve probably already learned more than you want to: my views on that were formed when I was 9, and I read an article in Good Housekeeping or Ladies’ Home Journal (the memory is vivid, sensual, the afternoon sunlight, the feel of the summer furniture under my bare legs!) ,about a woman who had taken thalidomide every day of her pregnancy, until they found out its effects. It was practically 100% certain she would give birth to a baby with no,or few, limbs. Of course they couldn’t be sure, no ultrasound back then, but…it was quite likely, more than likely. And she had to fly to Sweden to abort what indeed turned out to be a seriously, unredemmably deformed fetus.
I thought then and I think now: the government had no right forcing her to carry the poor creature to term.

Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.


It is not just about law. It is not just custody or abortion. It is everything from how boys and men are treated in school, presented on TV and mistreated at work.

Well before #metoo most men had realized that if a woman accused you of harassment, the accusation alone was enough to lose your job. What was the standard for harassment at work? Harassment was defined by the person saying they were being harassed . The standard was never what most people would agree was harassment. It wasn’t even what most women would agree was harassment. It was and is what any individual believes is harassment from their point of view.

Initially a person was informed that their behavior was harassment and it needed to stop. Then it was zero tolerance. Behavior so bad would not be tolerated. Obviously this is true of some behavior, but when you combine the zero tolerance and harassment as defined, things go south.

Because these cases need to be confidential, one never knows what really can get you fired so the safe thing to do is to ride low on the pony. At the end, there were very few under represented folks I would even ask to go to lunch or for a beer after work unless it was a group that included more than one woman for example.

I always figured this probably reinforced their belief that they are excluded, but what do you do?
Maybe the right thing to do is risk getting fired so they don’t feel excluded.

At the end of my career, they started pressuring you to join them as an ally. I guess they have declared war and you are either with them or against them.


I agree. #metoo was the height of it.
Normal heterosexual behavior is being marginalized and even criminalized, while deviance is being mainstreamed
My BMD says nothing would restore normalcy except war. What do you think? .