It turns out that the day before I wrote/published my most recent article about Abortion (in regards to Alabama’s new and surprisingly draconian Law), Mainer74 published his own article entitled, Abortion and Heathen Morality.
Where I approached the subject from a Helr point of view, Mainer74’s position appears rooted in more general Heathenry. His position is that, pro-choice or pro-life, one must follow the example of Tyr, God of Law, and “pay the cost” for your choices.
There are Heathens on both sides of the issue. In my own community the split is very heavy on the side of pro-choice, but it is by no means universal. Where we differ from both secular and the loud baying hounds of Christianity on this issue is with the lesson of Tyr. We accept the cost of our decisions. To make a choice is to accept the costs it imposes. If we cannot accept the cost, we have no right to make that choice.
A very interesting and “noble” way of putting it. However, as the post goes on he speaks of the “costs” but honestly only from one side of it. I’ll address this first.
The lesson of Tyr is that to make a choice is to accept the cost. Has the Pro Life movement accepted the cost? Have they chosen to treat the lives of children as sacred, the health of mothers as their holy responsibility? No, honestly they have not.
*Georgia is ranked 43 in overall child well being (1 being best and 50 as worst)
*672,150 children live in poverty which is 27.3% of the total number of children living in Georgia
*In 2012, 144,000 children lived with aging grandparents
*In 2012, 925,000 children lived in a household with a single parent – which is 39% of Georgia’s children
*Approximately 14,000 children are in the foster care system on any given day
*In 2011, there were 65 confirmed child deaths related to abuse or neglect
*Every year approximately 700 children will age out of the foster care system in Georgia. The following statistics are for the children who leave the system at 18 years of age:
>51% are unemployed
>43% end up homeless
>3% will further their education
>Many will be incarcerated
>More than half of the young women will have children who will also enter the foster care system and the cycle continue.
Now, one of the first things I thought when I first read this is, of course “How many of these people are PoC?” This may be simply because I’ve been lurking around /pol/ too much, but it is a viable question. How many of these individuals are, say, african american and how might that also affect these statistics? After all, we know that many of these statistics affect the AA community as a whole, so can we say that the lack of abortion is the cause of these? Correlation does not equal causation.
But let’s put that aside because it honestly isn’t important beyond a “are the facts your stating actually proving your argument” type question and instead let us look at the argument itself. I actually touched on this a bit yesterday when I posted the Carlin speech. But basically, Mainer here is saying “sure, you’re pro-life, but are you willing to shell out to support that life?” It is, in essence, trying to unit two arguments into one argument, so you can use the latter to defame and dishonor the former.
Let us be entirely clear. The entirety of the position of Pro-Life individuals is that “killing is wrong.” That is the totality of it. “Killing is an immoral action and should not be allowed.”
What Mainer (and Carlin) and many others do with this “are you willing to support the life post birth? No? Then shut up” and are doing is basically calling for Socialism, and then insisting that anyone who is taking the moral stance “killing is wrong” must then support Socialism or else they are not to be allowed to hold the moral stance “killing is wrong.” Because that’s what they’re insisting be done. The Government should tax the population to create programs in order to provide a “quality of life we think good” in order for there to be a cessation of killing. So, once again, socialists are willing to murder millions in order to get their Socialist Utopia. Only this time instead if farmers, intellectuals, and religious folks, they’re going straight to the source and killing the unborn.
So wonderfully ethical.
Now, before I get further I do want to stop and mention something. There are, in fact, two types of Socialism. The most common (and which I think Mainer is championing) is Communistic Socialism, or socialism based on the principle of Communism as put forth by Marx, which holds that everyone should be given everything they need, and no one should be allowed to have more than they deserve. Or something like that. It honestly just boils down to “you get what we say you can get and how dare you have anything we don’t think you should have because morality.” It’s a wonderful system based on a moral ground that equality of outcome is everything and we don’t care how many people we have to slaughter in order to get our Socialist Utopia.
The other type of Socialism is, of course, National Socialism. I can already hear the screaming, but hush for a moment. National Socialism is different because were ComSoc is all about “the only moral justice is equality,” NatSoc is instead based on the idea that the people and the state (and the nation) are one, and should work to mutual benefit. Ironically enough, everything (or most everything) Mainer wants appears in NatSoc when it comes to care of children. In fact, for the brief time NatSoc was allowed to exist, it surpassed everything Mainer desires. For starters, Mothers were given monthly pay for children they had, programs for their care and education and health were abundant, everything. This is of course because NatSoc’s economy was based on the idea that money = materials and labor, so that monthly check was actually the state paying women for their labor in raising children. There are no free handouts in NatSoc, but you’d be surprised at what labor can get you paid.
Somehow, I don’t think Mainer is desiring of National Socialism when he pushes this argument, however.
Still, we could look at some of these statistics and we might find some answers.
First off, we’re talking about Georgia, which is a Southern State. This might surprise a lot of people, but the South actually never fully recovered after the Civil War. In many cases, such recovery was prevented for decades, and then forgotten about decades after. My current home is right next to areas that, even in the 80’s and 90’s were some of the poorest in the nation and are recorded as looking like 3rd world countries at the time. Given the state of the economy since then, improvements have been slow, and mostly cosmetic. Georgia isn’t much different, and arguably got hit a lot harder than my own state post war. So this may account for some of the poverty. And since state programs are funded by taxes from that state, a poor state has less money to fund such programs.
As for the aging grandparents, single parents, etc, this is why I was curious as too the percentages of races represented here. It’s not something people like to talk about, but blacks are over represented in crime, which leads to over representation in prison and lost custody rights, which pushes children to the next nearest relative (grandparents, most often) and black women are over represented as single mothers and in poverty. So is it that the state has failed, or is it that the black community is filled with a miasma of problems which poison them daily? Again, correlation is not causation.
He mentions the foster care system which…would actually be a program Mainer demands pro-lifers give in order to support a pro-life situation. So he gets exactly what he wants, but he doesn’t like it, and that’s an argument for…what? Nothing, really. He got what he wanted. Not the fault of pro-lifers what he wanted actually turned out to be shit (like most ComSoc style programs). he also mentions that 65 children died a year of abuse/neglect, but given he’s siting numbers in the 600,000 range that doesn’t even register as a percentage and i’m pretty sure more kids die in car accidents a year. Keep that 65 deaths in mind, it’s really important later.
As for the unemployment, education, and homelessness statistics, that all has far, far, far more to do with jobs having been shipped out of the country for decades, the price of education becoming absolutely horrific, and banks and immigration driving up the prices of homes (or foreclosing on homes) than it does…socialism, lack of socialist programs, or pro-life. So all he’s really doing is throwing out a bunch of really scaring numbers that don’t have to do with the argument at all. Unless he’s arguing that killing these people would mean they don’t have these problems.
Huh, a socialist calling for mass murder to deal with social problems. How original and completely unexpected.
Far from treating mother and baby as sacred and paying the cost to make sure that those pregnant women would be cared for during the pregnancy they didn’t want, and the child they didn’t want would be looked after, the State of Georgia, and indeed most of the “Red States” or Conservative strong pro life regions have similar statistics showing neither mothers nor children receive anything resembling care from the state which forces the birth to take place.
All this paragraph is is nothing more than an attempt to socially and morally shame people Mainer doesn’t agree with (he admits being pro-choice) into accepting his position as the right one. As stated before, all Mainer is saying here is “unless you obey my socialist demands, you do not get to have the right to make a moral judgement.” It’s nothing more than saying “my morals are better than your morals, so you have to obey me because I say so.” It’s a bullshit argument, really.
It would be like me telling Mainer “you cannot be against rape unless you agree that we need to build a border wall, because a border wall would prevent some rapists coming into the country.” Sure, you can make the argument, and some might agree with you, but being for or against a border wall doesn’t mean one cannot be against rape. Just as like believing or not believing social programs to help people should exist (and they do, foster care, ebt, wic, etc, etc, etc. Everything Mainer wants generally already exists, it just doesn’t exist in a form that his fancy tastes fell is good enough) means you can’t be against killing. I mean, I know calling a Socialist a bourgeoisie is probably a low taste insult, but that’s what his demands sound like. Unless every child can be given a middle class life, then we should have the right to kill them.
Heathen’s may be pro-choice or pro life, but we hold Tyr’s lessons first in our heart and in our mind when we make such choices. To chose a thing is to chose its cost. If we are pro choice, we accept that we who are not willing to pay the costs physical, mental, emotional, and financial do not get to make the decision. If we are pro-life, we accept that to say to a woman that she must bear this child is to pledge that this mother will receive such care that she will not be at risk, that this child will be cared for all their growing years so that she need never fear for their fate.
I will be entirely honest, this paragraph makes me…upset.
Mainer spends the first part of his post basically saying “if you’re pro-life, I demand you accept the costs of raising these children!” and then here, right here, despite taking the moral position “these things are needed” he promptly says “but I don’t wanna pay for it, so I’m fine with people killing unborn children. That is the cost I’m willing to pay.”
So, what Mainer is basically saying is that he is willing to pay nothing. He will not hand over his money to support children, but he will not pay the blood price either. He is fine with an innocent being murdered as the price he pays for not shelling out his fucking cash. Of course, since I’m assuming that Mainer is not performing abortions himself, he is not even willing to pay the cost of picking up the blade and ending the life himself. So, he will give no cash, he will not give his life, he will not take a life, he will sit with his hand stroking his cock about how “lawful and moral” he is while doing and paying literally nothing. At all.
Fuck that. That is not moral. That is not “paying the cost” for his actions. You know, I was currious as to how many abortions there are a year, so I looked it up. According to Snopes (and breitbart) and the WHO, the number is about an average of 56 Million a year world wide. This was back in 2010-2014 so that number might have gone up.
56 Million a year.
To put that in perspective, the population of the USA is about 325 million people. That means that the equivalent of 1/6th of the entire population of the USA is Killed, IN THE WOMB EVERY FUCKING YEAR. It is, roughly, Half the amount of people killed by Communism in it’s 100 year run. It is, roughly 9 times the amount of people reportedly killed in the Holocaust. WWII, the deadliest war in human history, only had about 60 million deaths, and it lasted about seven years.
AND ABORTION KILLS 56 MILLION EVERY FUCKING YEAR.
This literally makes abortion rights the deadliest ideology in fucking human history. It makes it the deadliest event in human history. Every six years, the equivalent of the entire USA is slaughtered.
This is the “cost” mainer is willing to pay. 56 million souls a year, he demands as blood tithe. 56 million souls a year as tribute. 56 million souls. A year.
Is this a cost you are willing to pay? Is this a cost you can pay and it not cost you every part of your soul? Think of it. Think of the vast, near cosmic horror of it. Can you even grasp that number? Can you even grasp a fraction of that number?
You can be pro-life. You can be pro-choice. I don’t suppose it’s really my place to say one way or the other. But honestly, if you’re pro-choice, think of the countless millions who have been slaughtered in the name of this belief you hold…and then ask yourself if you really have ground to stand on when you protest anyone else with a “murderous” ideology. Because honestly, the amount anyone else wants to kill pales in comparison to the numbers whose murder you have supported.
Some food for thought.