abortion, Asatru, Galina Krasskova, Heathen, Heathenism, Hel, Pagan, Paganism, polytheism, Religion, texas, texas abortion ban, women's rights
I’m going to start this by saying that, as a general rule, I have a fair amount of respect for Krasskova. She’s done a lot of work over the years, she has been able to make a Name for herself in the Heathen community, she has honored Odin and the Aesir to the best of her ability (which is all Gods or mortals can ask of anyone in this faith), and she has not, as a rule, fallen to Marxist ideology like so many who would bear the title of Heathen have. In our few, limited interactions she has been nothing but respectful as I can recall, and she has liked a few of my posts. I do not call her friend, but that is because life and Wyrd have never set it for us to be friends, but neither do I consider her an enemy or a disgrace to the faith. I respect her.
I just happen to disagree with her on certain things. For instance, she recently liked a post by Mainer74 that I commented on in which he bemoaned the banning of porn by OnlyFans in explicitly marxist terms, and also not so subtly called for the legalization of pedophilic child sex work to “combat the abuses” children face from sexual predators. The other thing we disagree on is the “abortion ban” the Supreme Court has “allowed.”
Krasskova finds it to be Brutal, Misogynistic, and Insane.
But is it though? I wish to ponder this in the context of her views and supply my own as well as those from the perspective taught to me by Hel, my Goddess and Queen. Fair warning, this is long, and as I am not mocking Krasskova, there are no memes.
“The Supreme Court just upheld one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. This law bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, at about six weeks. While the Supreme court ruling allowed the law to go into effect but kept open the possibility of abortion providers and perhaps even individuals challenging the law in court in the future, for now, this is a crushing blow to women’s liberty in the lone star state.”
The first thing we need to do is clear up a misconception. From what I have been able to put together, the law does not, in fact, ban an abortion after a heartbeat is detected. What it does is open up civil liability to any medical provider who performs such an “operation” once a heartbeat is detected or roughly six weeks into the pregnancy in the state of Texas.
This is very important, because it is the entire reason the Supreme Court upheld the ban. I’m going to post a video of two lawyers talking about it, but the gist is this: The SC upheld the ban because there is no State Actor when it comes to upholding this law. No government official is bringing a lawsuit against the abortion provider to punish them, it is purely a civil matter involving a citizen suing, based on an individual case by case basis. They explain it a lot better, but basically the SC upheld the law because there was literally nothing within the power of the SC to effect the law or stop it, because there is no one for them to stop, and it was apparently designed this way intentionally.
The best way I can sort of piece it together is that it allows people to sue the abortion provider in civil court for the death of the unborn child…much the same way you could sue someone who caused the death of your unborn child in say a car accident or physical assault, but I’m not a lawyer so don’t quote me on that. Law has already become insanely confusing and this law is a perfect example of the kind of lawcrafting such a law would need in order to stand up to all the lawyers.
Now, Krasskova terms this as a crushing blow for women’s liberty in Texas, but we’ll try to get to that in a bit.
“Here are some observations and questions based on what I’ve read so far.
An abusive spouse may report his or her wife to the police for having an abortion (even if she hasn’t) and receive a 10K (Ten thousand) dollar reward.“
To this one, I have no answers. From what I can tell, anyone may report a suspected abortion. Beyond that, trying to get a clear picture of how any reward system works has been impossible. Those who are pro-choice and are infuriated by this law are spouting off every damn theory and worst case scenario that pops into their head with little regards to the actual facts of the law. Like the fact the law isn’t apparently a ban, it just has managed to make all the abortion providers police themselves so they don’t get sued, at least from what reputable sources I have managed to get. Anyone who is on the fence or pro-life at this point is just kinda staring at the law with a giant “WTF, how the hell did this work?” type of thing and are still trying to figure out exactly how the law works and what all it entails. As the months progress, we’ll have to see.
But like most “reward” programs I highly doubt everyone who calls up is going to get a reward. I could be wrong though. I mean, I’m pretty sure that I could call up the police and tell them one of my neighbors is dealing drugs “for a reward” and I’m pretty damn certain that if no drugs are found I’m not getting shit. I might not even if they are found. Just how the system works.
“Even by the time a heartbeat is detected, there is no viable human being present in the clot of tissue that will later become a person.“
Years ago I was fairly pro-choice. These days, after having dealt with pro-choice people and seeing what the pro-choice moment has become, while I wouldn’t exactly put myself in the “pro-life” camp by any means, I am disgusted by the vast majority of what “pro-choice” people belief and stand for.
One of the greatest examples of this is “It isn’t a viable human being!”
Viable. I am disgusted by this word. It offends me. What is viable? Well, to the pro-choice person, it means you can survive without the “assistance” of the mother. Of course, most of them tend to ignore that as medicine advances, what is “viable” becomes ever earlier. There is the flip side of the issue though.
It isn’t viable because it cannot survive on its own. This is has been the hallmark chant of most pro-choicers. Unless the fetus can survive on its own, it isn’t viable.
But a child cannot survive on its own. For the first three years of its life, a child on its own is a death waiting to happen. Hell, up until ages like 9-12 it’s probably a pretty close call as to if a child could survive on their own. This has actually been used by some pro-choice people as an argument for post-birth abortion, because it’s not enough to be able to end a life right up until the moment it escapes the womb, that little parasite is still reliant on “mommy’s body” to survive so she should have the right to still kill it.
I have been dealing with a chronic, destructive illness that has robbed me of my health, my strength, and at times, even my will to live. I require constant medications to keep my body in a state of non-function sufficient enough to support existing, but I wouldn’t call this life. Were my medications, or the financial aid I receive to stop, I would die.
I am a “non-viable” entity. According to the logic of pro-choicers, those who keep me alive, now have the right to end my life. After all, I am a parasite, a thing that cannot live without a host. Any potential value I may present is offset by the fact that I cannot support my own existence by my own power.
The same goes for the covid patient on a ventilator, or anyone else in the ICU, or anyone else with a chronic or deadly illness. The same applies to anyone receiving government financial aid. You are not “viable.” You cannot support your existence by your own power. You are beholding in your life to some other, higher, more powerful force.
Should that Force have the right to take your life as it pleases, because you are dependent on it?
Krasskova’s position says yes. She fully admits the unborn will become a person. Yet a person’s life has no merit because it requires the support of another to survive.
Hel teaches me the answer is no.
The simple truth is that no one is “viable” as a human being. No man is an island, fully capable of living solely on their own power without assistance. We rely on people to power our homes, to grow our food, to police our streets, to protect our rights, etc, etc, etc. Yet we still hold that those we rely on do not have the right to kill us because we rely on them.
“Apparently even mentioning abortion as an option to a woman can now have legal consequences.”
I mean, that sounds horrible but…that’s how it is for pretty much every criminal action out there. If I were to tell you that the solution to your poverty was to go rob a bank, I could probably face some trouble for it. Recently, former President Trump faced impeachment and other legal and social ramifications for telling people to “peacefully fight for your right to be heard,” something that is actually enshrined in our constitution as lawful, because it was seen as “inciting violence” which is generally considered to be unlawful.
If you council or conspire with someone to commit a crime, you generally can face legal consequences for that. The fact this crime is abortion doesn’t really change that fact. The fact that now you would basically be conspiring to commit murder against a what Texas Law enshrines as a living human just kind a compounds that. I could face consequences too if I recommended or conspired to kill, even though my faith has no problem with killing and actually proscribes it for certain things. Since Krasskova and I supposedly share much same faith, I would hope she’d kinda be used to the idea.
“The prison sentence for a woman seeking an abortion will be longer than that of a rapist.”
I have no idea if this is true. So far, none of the pro-life or neutral sides I’ve seen talking about this have mentioned prison for literally anyone involved, not even the doctor who performs the abortion. In fact, only the provider can be sued from what I understand. The “mother” in question is protected from any criminal or civil liability under the current Texas law as I understand it.
But let’s think about this honestly and logically, from the perspective of Texas, assuming Krasskova’s statement here is true.
“The prison sentence for a woman who murders another human being will be longer than that of a rapist.”
I fail to see the problem here. You usually get sentenced to a longer prison term for murdering someone than you do for raping them. Now, we can argue all year long about if rape is worse than murder and thus should be punished more harshly, but from the perspective of Texas, you literally just killed an innocent child who had done literally nothing wrong.
You know, the kinda crime that usually gets you put to death and has most people calling for you to be drawn, quartered, gutted, strung up, and brutalized before being put to death. I’m sorry, I know this will offend a lot of people, but logically Texas isn’t doing anything wrong by giving a woman a longer sentence for killing her unborn child. And let’s be honest here, that would still be a shorter sentence than if a man walked up to a woman and killed her unborn child.
“What happens to a woman who leaves the state to have an abortion? Will she be arrested on her return?”
Again, this is one of those things I’m not 100% on, but only the abortion provider can be sued, no one is getting arrested as far as I know, and if you do it outside of the state there’s no jurisdiction to sue.
“More importantly, how will the state know? Are women’s medical records now to be opened and available to scrutiny? Will this law be extended retroactively?“
Given that a fuckton of women like to actually brag about getting abortions, like they’re something to be proud of, posting it to tictoc, twitter, facebook, etc, I highly doubt that the state or anyone else is going to have to get anyone’s medical records.
Hell, technically, if my understanding of Roe v Wade is correct, women could technically already be charged with murder for having an abortion. The way it was legalized was that a woman had a right to medical privacy and that included getting an abortion. Sort of a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” type of thing like the military had about being gay. You don’t say you had an abortion, and we don’t charge you for getting one. Now, this I assume changed down the years, but I could be wrong.
I generally find though, that women are more than happy to speak about getting abortions. Now, they might clam up a bit because of this new law, but I’m sure there’s going to be enough women who will “fight the power” by refusing to hide their “using their right to bodily autonomy.”
“I am very pro-choice. I not only believe abortion should be available on demand, I think it should be legally required in some circumstances. There is never, ever a time where I would limit a woman’s right to bodily sovereignty (even though I think abortion should be mandated in certain circumstances, I’d be very, very hesitant to make any laws to that effect. This is personal business, not something in which the government should involve itself). That’s what any abortion restriction is: an assault on bodily sovereignty.“
I, frankly, would be interesting to know what these “mandatory circumstances” would be. I mean, I’ve come across people who believed similar before, but they were Eugenicists who believed that the undesirable members of humanity should be purged in order to speed along the evolutionary process of making humanity better, stronger, smarter, etc. I make no claims that Krasskova shares there believes, I’m just saying that’s my only real reference point to “mandatory, required abortions.”
You can look at statistics such as 13/50 and decide for yourself if the Eugenicists were right in their desired mandatory purges of the unborn. I will say neither one way or the other.
I will give Krasskova credit for at least being smart enough to know that as much as she might want it, giving the government the power to mandate giving her what she wants is a terrible idea.
However, I do take issue with something she says. “Any abortion restriction is an assault on bodily sovereignty.”
My issue is that every abortion is inherently an assault on bodily sovereignty. Every abortion inherently ends a life. Period. Call that life unviable, call it a parasite, call it what you will, it is a living human and you are violating the sovereignty of its body when you kill it.
“Do I believe abortion is murder? Yes. I believe the fetus is a life. Do I think that’s a relevant question? Not in the least. The only life that matters in this situation is that of the woman because until that fetus is pushed through her vagina in a flood of blood and pain, it is nothing more than a parasite, depending upon the mother for its continued existence. Carrying a fetus to term, has long term, potentially devastating physical effects on a woman’s body.“
Krasskova even admits that she see it as a life and that killing it is murder.
So she is against the violation of bodily sovereignty by supporting the violation of bodily sovereignty? Why? Because the life of the woman is more important than the life of the child. To her it is a parasite, depending on another for its continued existence. Because having a child can have “long term, devastating physical effects on a woman’s body.”
I am reminded of the Tao of Dresden, “Build a man a fire, warm him for a night. Set a man of fire, warm him for the rest of his life.”
I would say that being killed has long term, devastating physical effects on anyone’s body.
But apparently that’s not good enough.
I want to address/question something here, and that is “murder.”
We like to throw the term murder around, but as a Heathen murder has very specific connotations. To kill is perfectly fine in Heathenism, morally speaking (legally is still another matter so don’t go getting ideas). In the ancient ways, in fact, killing was sometimes the only solution to certain problems. As a Heathen, I have no issue with killing.
Murder, however, was something shameful, dishonorable. To murder was to betray everything honorable and good you were as a Heathen. A Heathen stands by their deeds, and faces the consequences, but a murderer hides their deeds, or seeks to get away with them without facing any consequences.
Krasskova states she believes abortion is murder. Now, I do not know if she is speaking from a modern perspective or a Heathen one, but in a weird way she has hit the nail upon the head.
The Pro-choice people wish to never face any consequence for their killing another human being. They seek to hide their crime, not by refusing to speak of what they did and killing in secret, but in a far, far worse way. By making what they do “lawful.” They cloak their misdeeds and hide them behind pretty words like “rights” and “bodily autonomy” and “a woman’s suffering” and “it isn’t a real/viable human being!” But to hide a killing, to cover it up, to insist that what was done was not done, that is murder.
And murder is shameful and dishonorable.
“I think Roe V. Wade is a bad ruling. Abortion was legalized on privacy grounds. There are stronger grounds upon which to allow women basic civil liberties (is there a single medical procedure for men that is put before non-medical, government and political groups like abortion? No there is not).“
Well, men generally don’t go around asking for the ability to murder those whose lives depend on us on “medical grounds,” now do we? If we did, I’m pretty sure people would be getting involved to stop us.
But while I do not think Krasskova here is being deliberately obtuse, I will point out that there is a similar situation where yes, the government has stepped in and regulated much like abortion. The issue of child support/financial abortions.
See, the courts have ruled that if a woman carries a child to term, the father as a rule must provide child support regardless of any actual relationship status with the mother. Have a one night stand? Child support for eighteen years my dude.
In some cases, the woman doesn’t even have to prove the child is his. In other cases, its been proven that the child isn’t even his, but a man must still pay support for that child regardless.
Don’t like it? Refuse to pay? Feel like this is a violation of your bodily autonomy and human rights? Guess what, you’re going to prison (and sometimes for longer than someone convicted of rape).
When you think about it, a woman receiving child support from a man is literally a parasite, drawing on his life and labor to support herself while giving nothing back to him. No love, no sex, fairly often she isn’t even required to let him see the child he is paying for. She takes, and takes, and takes, often with the claim that she “Cannot live without the support she receives.”
I wonder if that makes her “non-viable” as a life form and if he should have the right to abort her? The courts say no. Pro-choicers say no. Feminists say no. Funny how that works.
We are told by society and the pro-choice crowd that a man has absolutely zero say in if an unborn child gets to live or die. That is at the sole discretion of the mother. They insist that for nine months (or longer) she is the sole and only person who matters to the discussion. Not the Child. Not the Father. Her and Her alone. If she doesn’t want it, she should be able to kill it at any time. And if she does want it, she is then entitled to 18 years of a man’s life and labor to “support” that child that he had zero say in the existence of and zero right to have access to if she doesn’t wish it.
You know what I call that? Taxation without Representation. The exploitation of the proletariat laborer by the bourgeoisie elite. I call it slavery and human bondage. I call it what it is. A violation of his bodily autonomy.
And the courts have regulated that it is perfectly fine to be done.
And women/pro-choice people are fine with that. Yet as soon as the shoe goes on the other foot…
“Let’s start with the 13th Amendment, you know, the one that abolished slavery. Any time someone has no control over their bodily sovereignty, particularly where forced breeding is concerned, we have something quite akin to slavery. Forced breeding was always part of the experience of slavery in this country, particularly after the trans-Atlantic slave trade was abolished. Control of fertility (for both women and men, though the greatest burden always fell on the woman) was a significant part of the experience of the enslaved in the US. Apparently, it still is. “
Financial Abortion rights now! Financial Abortion rights forever!
Not jokes aside, I’m just going to point out how utterly ridiculous this statement is.
“Being pregnant and having to give birth is exactly like slavery!”
Seriously, this is some fucked up “Handmaid’s Tale” level of absolute bullshit. Women are not enslaved. Women are not bred. Women’s fertility is not being controlled. No one is going around, slapping collars and leashes around your necks, dragging you to the pillory, and breeding you. I know rape is statistically women’s number one sexual fantasy and I’m sure the idea is all something you’ve fapped to at one point or another, but it is not happening!
Not in the USA anyways. The “Talibros” might be doing that. Idk.
Still, the overwhelming majority of the sex women have is consensual with them choosing their partner.
Women have access to a plethora of birth control options, including use it and forget it styles, monthly styles, daily styles, and even the “I’m so lazy I can’t be bothered with it, so here’s a pill to take the morning after” style. Women also have the number one type of birth control in the world.
Keeping your fucking legs closed and not having sex.
I know everyone likes to shit on abstinence, but like a gun that is never loaded doesn’t fire, a womb that is never fucked doesn’t get pregnant.
Ladies, it’s your body, it’s your choice. You choose to have sex. You choose to have sex without protection. You choose have sex and not take steps if protections should fail. You choose.
And like everything, choices have consequences.
And before you start screaming bullshit and that my words are wrong, I will point out to you that exactly every single one of those arguments is used to justify making men pay child support for 18 years. “It was your choice to have (unprotected) sex, Sir, now deal with the consequences of your actions and pay up!”
If it is sauce for the gander, it shall be sauce for the goose as well. So says Hel.
“Then we have the 14th Amendment, the first part of which states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”“
“Life. Liberty. Property.”
“Shall not be denied without due process of law…with equal protection under the law.”
Every human being has a right to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, Property, and to be treated Equally under the Law. These are some of our most sacred values in the USA. They are the fundamental basis of our human rights.
I look to the Rights of the Father, but I do not see them.
I look to the Rights of the Infant, but I do not see them.
I look to the Rights of the Mother, and I see Murder.
Now, Krasskova and other pro-choicers can make the argument that “born in the USA” doesn’t apply to someone who is not born. And sure, as far as the 14th Amendment goes, they’re right.
But the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness put forth in our Declaration and Constitution did not have this limitation! They are the right of all living, sentient beings! American or not, Born or not, it doesn’t matter. If tomorrow some alien species landed on earth, they would be as entitled to these fundamental rights as any human!
Every infant, born or unborn, has the right to LIVE! It has the right to have its rights protected! To be treated equally before the law, as all sentient beings must! No one, for any reason, be it race, religion, gender, sex, or otherwise, has the inherent right to violate the rights of another! To place themselves in a place of supremacy over others! That is the Law of this Land!
Yet abortion does exactly this! It abridges the privileges and immunities of fathers and unborn children! It makes slaves of the former, and the murdered of the latter!
Krasskova says the 14th enshrines the right of women to murder! I say it enshrines the very opposite!
“Or let’s talk about self-defense. I would have preferred to see Roe V. Wade legalized on grounds of self-defense and bodily sovereignty than privacy. I think those are much, much stronger grounds.”
“Murdering my unborn child is an act of self defense.”
How positively unheathen an outlook.
Hospitality is sacred in Heathenism. To show kindness to a stranger. To treat them well, give them food, drink, and shelter. These are holy things. Odin himself would often travel the world and test the hospitality of men, and woe to those who failed in this sacred rite.
A woman has sex with a man. She has shown him hospitality. From this sex a child is conceived. A gift from the Gods themselves. To this end, the woman is tasked, her body is made a welcoming hall. To the guest of this hall she gives food, drink, and shelter. It is sacred. It is a rite. One that has been performed since before the Gods made the first man and first woman who were our ancestors.
“I must murder the guest in my hall.”
As much as I despised Game of Thrones, I will point to the example of the Red Wedding, since I’m sure a lot of people remember it and remember being horrified about it. As I understand it, the Starks had Insulted the Freys, but even so, the wholesale slaughter of all the guests was seen both in universe and out as an act of sheer, utter barbarity and dishonor, retribution unworthy of the insult.
The unborn have given no insult. They have committed no crime. In the vast majority of cases, they don’t even do any harm. Yet the Host must have the right to kill this innocent guest at will?
Not in Hel’s halls, they do not, nor I think, in most of the halls of the Aesir or the Vanir.
“Within our religious traditions, abortion is not prohibited. In fact, at various times and places amongst our Heathen ancestors, newborns were not considered properly ensouled until nine days after birth. If we’re looking at Roman religion, it was when the father picked the newborn child up and acknowledged it. Furthermore, we have many Deities Who may be called upon to protect women who choose to have abortions. Freya, for instance, is a Goddess of sexuality, of personal choice, of bodily sovereignty (and many other things). I think one may call upon Her, or the other Vanir, for protection and blessing if one is seeking an abortion. Now, the Vanir are also Deities of fertility. We have Heathens who are pro-life, and they may choose to call upon the Vanir to protect life and bless women choosing to have children. (I also think it is important to be very, very careful about ascribing our personal desires onto the Gods. We may say, “I think Freya would bless this choice,” but to say outright, as if we can ever fully know, “Freya likes/doesn’t like X” is deeply lacking in integrity. We may assume, conjecture, but can never truly *know* because the Gods are so much more than we ever can be). Any abrogation of personal choice is an abrogation of personal power and as such, I think this would be quite problematic from a Vanic point of view. Certainly, in our lore, Freya never allowed her own power to be so infringed. One may thus extend the lesson.”
Sure, it wasn’t prohibited. It wasn’t exactly encouraged either. As for a child not being ensouled for nine days after their birth, sure I can buy that. But then again our ancestors also didn’t have access to ultrasounds or the amount of medical knowledge we have about their birthing cycle as we do today.
Our ancestors and faith also believed in slavery too.
But Krasskova said slavery was wrong, and the wrongness of slavery was such that it justified women being able to murder their unborn children.
Despite the fact our religion teaches us Murder is wrong.
This is something that has been annoying me for a while in Heathen circles, but there is the overwhelming issue where Heathens will pick and choose what they like morally from the ancient ways and more modern fair.1 Mainer and most inclusive heathens do it with Marxism, where they take most of their morals from left wing ideologies, and then occasionally have something from heathenism thrown in. Krasskova is doing it here for abortion rights.
And yet the contradictions always go their way.
At some point, if I can, I am highly tempted to write an article about “casting aside the cross” as Mainer put it, and pointing out exactly all the things our ancestors thought were “Good” that so many in our faith insist are “not good” while they still use other things our ancestors thought were good (or they pretend they thought were good) to justify their actions and outlooks.
I’m pretty sure many a “inclusive heathen” would rage if someone shoved their noses in the fact that our ancestors believed in the inherent morality of social classes, including a slave class, for example.
I’m not sure how Krasskova deals with the fact that our ancestors believed slavery was perfectly fine and murder was wrong, while she apparently holds that slavery is bad but murder is perfectly acceptable. One of those questions for the ages, and one she will likely have to explain to Hel when the time comes. Odds are I’ll be dead by then, so maybe my beloved will be kind and let me listen in on that one.
I do find it interesting to note that she invokes Freya as being on her side of the things, though with a bit of a loophole. Much like Mainer brought Freya out to justify his points. “Goddess of beauty, sex, feminine power, bodily autonomy, etc, etc, etc.”
It’s really starting to look like I need to write a dedicated article about this “Freya” issue too. Too many take her tale as one of permission, rather than one of warning, I think. This is a dreadful mistake.
Again, I note that she doesn’t mention Frigg, Sif, or any other Goddesses. Nor does she mention Hel as supporting her position.
This last act is very, very wise on her part. While my views on abortion have often been lenient, my beloved Goddess’s views have always been a very strict, hardline position. After all, when your realm is flooded with millions of unborn children, murdered by their own mothers, much like Allied soldiers walking into Nazi Death Camps, one’s tolerance levels tend to bottom out very, very quickly. The mewling cries of women screaming “my body, my choice,” while ignoring the bodies and choices of both their unborn children or male lovers, only cements this lack of patience on the matter.
“There is the healing Goddess Hlif, ever a help to women. She is usually called upon for anything pertaining to OB/GYN issues. While She is a Goddess of birth, as She also tends to all things gynecological, I see no reason why She could not be called upon here as well. We are not animals, slaves to our biology. We have wyrd, and thus the capacity for conscious, individuated choice. That doesn’t suddenly disappear because one possesses a uterus.
Then there is Gerda, the wife of Freyr. This has ever been a union of opposites in so many ways and my particular branch of the Northern Tradition holds that because Freyr came to Asgard as a hostage for peace (one of the hostages exchanged to guarantee peace between the Aesir and Vanir, the other being Njord), and because this would extend to His children too, He and Gerda have no children. Not all denominations of the Northern Tradition hold to this, but ours does. Because of this Gerda maybe sought out by those who have had miscarriages, those who use birth control, and those who have abortions.“
What an age I have been born to, when the Goddesses of Healing are invoked in murder, and it up to the Goddess of Death and those who follow her to stand against it. With every new day, I find myself longing more and more for Ragnarok to cleanse the universe.
Yes, Krasskova, you have Wyrd. Wyrd, destiny, forged by the Norn and the consequences of our choices.
That doesn’t suddenly disappear because you happen to have something appear in your womb. You don’t get to deny the consequences of your actions, to murder their result, just because you have a uterus. Murder doesn’t become moral just because of your sex organs.
“You know what this issue never was amongst our ancestors? A matter for public scrutiny. It was women’s medicine and women’s business, a private thing known to the woman and her midwife or healer. Of course, in ideal circumstances within a family, it may have been a matter of discussion between spouses but in the end, it was a choice the woman herself made.”
You know why it was never an issue of public scrutiny? Because our ancestors never marched through the streets demanding the right to murder their unborn children. They didn’t champion it as a moral right. They didn’t treat as some holy act to prove women’s power, sovereignty, and divinity!
Heck, women weren’t even allowed a place in political discussions 99% of the time by our ancestors! Politics was the domain of men, just as the home was the domain of women. Shall we strip women of the right to vote then, as was pleasing to our ancestors and considered morally good by them? Krasskova wants to complain that “men are making laws that effect women’s bodies and rights,” but the truth is that is the natural, moral, and traditional way of our ancestors.
Shall we return to that then, as well? I mean, if we’re going to invoke the morality of our ancestors, let’s break this down.
1) Murder is wrong. 2) Slavery is okay. 3) women have no place in political discussions. 4) hospitality is sacred. 5) social stratification was the norm. 6) killing under certain conditions was acceptable or required response for actions taken. 7) everyone has a Wyrd/Fate that governs events in their lives.
A woman and her “doctor” have conspired to murder my kin. By Heathen custom, I’m obligated to get justice or revenge for this act. This means kill them or obtain a weregeld. Should I not be allowed to kill them for some reason, and they be unable to pay the weregeld, I may take them as my slaves. The woman claims that it is her legal right to murder my kin because it is in her body, yet this “law” was put in place by women at the behest of women and women have no place in politics and law making. Thus it is not a true law, but a heretical one, and thus not a defense. She has violated the sacred rights of hospitality she was due to show the infant within her, an infant it was her Wyrd to be impregnated with. If I have not killed her, but taken her as my slave, I may now use her as I please, even to breed another child as payment for the one she murdered, and in the eyes of God and Law by our ancient ways, I am morally justified in doing so.
See how this works?
You can’t just go invoking the ancient ways you like, while ignoring the ancient ways you don’t because they don’t let you justify your actions.
You know what else it also was abortion was to our ancestors? Rare.
Which brings us back to the Texas law. You know why the Texas law is like this? Because in the seventies, eighties, and nineties, there was a compromise. Abortion was to be safe, legal, and rare. It was meant to be the option of last resort, because to take a human life was a terrible thing that should be done only when it must.
However, in the last decade or so, the pro-choice side has abandoned the compromise. Now abortion must be Safe, Legal, and Freely Available! You want to stop an abortion from happening even one moment before the child is born? You’re a monster who hates women. Even Krasskova has embraced this position.
“Let me Murder At Will!” screams the pro-choice.
Why should any compromise be kept with such people, when they will not keep it? The oath was violated, the agreement torn asunder. Pro-choice people sowed the wind, now they reap the whirlwind. They denied the sanctity of life, now they get it shoved down their throats.
Is it brutal? Sure, but only in the same measure of their own brutality. Is it insane? No more insane than insisting you have a moral right to murder an innocent person. Is it misogynistic? If insisting women be held to the same standards as men when it comes to killing is misogyny, maybe we need a bit more of that in the world. I long for a world with true gender equality, as Kazuma says.
“Modern America is not so enlightened. Laws like this are not about protecting potential life. They’re about criminalizing sex and pleasure and keeping women in a place defined by a most pernicious evangelical Christianity with a healthy helping of the Victorian cult of motherhood to boot. It’s revolting. This is not about “women being unable to control themselves” (as I recently saw stated on twitter and by a woman no less). It’s about basic human rights and human dignity – not to potential life, but to living, breathing women here and now. It’s about trusting that women are actually capable of determining for themselves when to become pregnant.”
Krasskova, complains that “modern American is not so enlightened.”
The thing is, this isn’t true. Parts of America are Enlightened, and the Enlightened position is that every being has the inherent right to Life. The Enlightenment position is anti-abortion. No ifs, ands, or buts. Yes, this happens to be similar to the Christian view. It happens to be similar to the Helish view. That doesn’t make the position invalid.
I mean, it was the pernicious evangelical Christian attitude that slavery was wrong, while the Heathen value was that slavery is acceptable. But I notice she has no issue with embracing a Christian attitude over a Heathen one where that is concerned.
This law, despite her claims, is not about criminalizing sex or pleasure. There are dozens of steps a woman can take to have sex and pleasure and not get pregnant. Each and everyone of them are in her control. If she forsakes them, that is also in her control. If she gets pregnant, that is 100% in her control, long before the need for an abortion arises. I do trust that women are fully capable of determining for themselves when they get pregnant through dozens of types of birth control.
But I do not think this is about women being “unable” to control themselves.
I have come to believe it is about women refusing to be in control of themselves to the point they insist they must have the right to murder in order to get out from suffering the consequences of their actions. If you skip steps 1-12, you don’t get to suddenly start screaming at step 13 about how this isn’t your fault and you need to kill the parasite inside you because you don’t want it. You had twelves steps to solve the problem before it became a problem. If you didn’t, that’s on you. If you did an they failed, then I am pretty damn sure it is your Wyrd to get pregnant and you had better damn well give birth to that kid because they clearly are meant to have a Fate.
“I actually wonder if those who are so incredibly anti-choice realize what it’s like to have one’s body turned into an incubator. My earliest memory as a child was of doggedly, most definitely, and under no circumstances ever wanting a child. I was maybe 2 ½ and I knew I found the whole thing utterly disgusting, dehumanizing, and permanently disabling in some circumstances. My opinion on the matter hasn’t changed. I would flat out rather be executed than forced to carry a child. So, I have made sure never to get pregnant, however, if I did, I’d have had the abortion clinic on speed dial. Other women want children, but not at a given time, or they want to do the financially sensible thing and space their children in a way that allows for economic independence. Or…many other reasons. Really the only reason a woman needs to not be pregnant is “I don’t want to be.””
So, Krasskova made a choice when she was 2 1/2 about pregnancy and refused to change her mind over the decades of her life. I’m sure a psychologist could have a field day with that, but I’m not going to. I mean, how a child that age even understand concepts like dehumanization I have no idea. I was something of a genius when I was a kid and I didn’t get those concepts until much later in life. I’m pretty sure at 2 1/2 I was solving the mystery of stacking blocks and playing with trucks even if I didn’t quite understand what a truck was. Most kids I don’t think are even talking at that point. Maybe she’s just special, idk.
Here’s the thing, she wants to talk about if anti-choicers realize what its like to have their body turned into an “incubator,” but the fact is a lot of women are pro-life, so I’m going to assume they have and they find the idea wonderful. Some say as many as 50% or more of women are pro-life.
Me? I mean, I admit I’m a man, but if you want to do this I’ll do it. You want to complain about your body being turned into an incubator for a few months because you chose to have unprotected sex and that makes you some sort of dehumanized victim? Go ahead. I’m going to laugh at you. Try having your internal organs literally turn traitor and try to kill you in the most painful, humiliating way possible. Try losing the ability to do literally 90% of the things that made you happy in life ever again. Try living with the knowledge that someday, they may have to take a knife to you and carve you up, ripping your body apart in order to “save” your life and all you get to replace it is a bunch of primitive plastic parts that don’t even do the damn job. Try living with that and knowing that’s your life now until you die. And there wasn’t a damn thing you did to cause it, or a damn thing you could do to stop it.
You want to bitch about nine months as a consequence of your choice, go ahead. I have zero sympathy for you. You could have prevented it. You made your choice. Now you want the right to murder to get out of it.
Fuck you. You want to take a life to solve your problems? Take your own. At least then you’d be killing the one responsible for your situation rather than the innocent life who literally did nothing to you. After all, it was your body and your choice.
“What these laws really are is about criminalizing sexual pleasure and criminalizing women’s independence. I’m all for modesty and continence but come on. Birth control fails all the time. Accidents happen. Moreover, rape and incest happen (cases where I think abortion should be required as a matter of common sense personally). Women don’t need big daddy government telling them what to do with their bodies. There’s no consistency in these laws either. If pro-lifers were really worried about loss of fetal life, then male masturbation would likewise be a source of legal concern. But we’re not seeing that. We’re seeing, as always, the onus of these laws placed on the woman. Nor can women easily get a tubal ligation which would solve the problem completely for some – paternalistic doctors will say she doesn’t really know her own mind, or might marry someone who wants children. Even now. (In 2019 a young woman in UK sued the NHS for just this reason and won the right to be sterilized. But note, she had to go to court. Men seeking vasectomies don’t have this issue). All of this is a violation of bodily sovereignty in every respect. So when someone is coming out prolife, what they’re really saying whether they realize it or not is this: I not only don’t trust women to make the right decisions for themselves, but I don’t think they should legally have the right to do so. We are rendering women as less than full civic partners in American social and political life. What’s next? Is birth control going to be made illegal? Will a woman’s testimony only be worth half that of a man’s in court? Maybe we’ll go back to the days when women couldn’t own a credit card or put a down payment on a house without a male relative’s consent (as late as the 1970s in the States).“
If your pleasure and independence require murder to obtain, you do not deserve them. I mean, if we’re going to use that logic, then the Nazis did nothing wrong because their pleasure and independence required the death of the Jews. Hell, I could pull up the number of people raped, assaulted, and murdered by black people in the USA and by Krasskova’s logic, I could justify the genocide of the entire African American population! I mean think about it, by getting rid of 13% of the population, we could get rid of 50% of the crime! Hell, in places like Chicago and NYC, we could probably even get rid of 80-90% of the crime! Certainly for our pleasure and independence we can justify this!
Oh, what’s that you say? That would be wrong? Inhumane? Evil?
I’m sorry, what are these arguments? They’re no good for putting even a limit on abortion, you misogynist! Why should they be valid for anything else that involves making people’s lives better through murder?
“Well, if they really cared, men’s masturbation would be an issue!”
And so would women having their periods by that logic. No one cares if a sperm or an egg is wasted or lost, because those aren’t living human beings. An unborn infant is. This is a no brainier, yet still pro-choice people like to bitch about how men don’t face any regulations. We also, again, don’t get a say in the matter. At all.
You can’t regulate something that doesn’t exist. Well, you can, but it does absolutely nothing.
“What you’re really saying is I don’t trust women to make the right decisions.”
Well, given that we trusted women and women’s solution is Murder…no?
I mean, that’s kind of the reason we don’t trust white supremacists with the “right decision” on how to deal with crime. It’s the reason we don’t trust national socialists with how to deal with Jews. It’s why we shouldn’t trust Marxists with how to deal with the issues of capitalism. It’s why we don’t let Jeffery Dahmer come up with the solution to food shortages!
When your solution is murder, and you admit it is murder, or worse you try to pretend it isn’t murder because the people you’re killing “aren’t really human,” then yeah, we probably should not trust you with making that decision!
“What’s next? Is birth control going to be made illegal? Will a woman’s testimony only be worth half that of a man’s in court? Maybe we’ll go back to the days when women couldn’t own a credit card or put a down payment on a house without a male relative’s consent (as late as the 1970s in the States)“
I mean, birth control is apparently so useless you have to have the unconditional right to murder another human being, so I don’t see what making it illegal would change according to pro-choice people. Given that a woman can literally ruin a man’s life on nothing but her testimony, while his is considered worthless (even when backed up by physical evidence) I guess I’d be down to try making a woman’s testimony worth half that of a man’s. Certainly couldn’t fuck up the justice system any worse than it already is. Given that women are responsible for creating most of the debt in the nation (and most of it gets paid off by men), yeah, sure, let’s take those credit cards away. Statistically speaking, you’re forcing someone else to slave away to pay for your goods, and according to Krasskova slavery is wrong.
“So, here is my solution. TX has fairly decent gun rights. I think women ought to avail themselves of those rights because this is an attack on women’s freedom, bodily sovereignty, and personal integrity. It’s disgusting. When someone tries to enslave you, the only appropriate response is armed resistance. Hoist the black flag and get on with it, ladies (and the men who love them). Or watch your freedoms get chipped away ever more.
To those anti-choicers out there, you are welcome to hold whatever opinion on the matter you want and to apply that to your own person. The moment you step to me or anyone else with demands about what we can and cannot do with our own bodies, the moment you attempt to force fertility, weeeelll, see the paragraph above.”
Ah the wonderful “I have the right to murder, and if you try to stop me, I’ll murder you too,” defense.
“When someone tries to enslave you, the only appropriate response is armed resistance.”
Men, you heard it here first. According to Krasskova, if some lady gets pregnant with your kid and tries to make you pay child support, you are within your moral grounds to kill her for trying to enslave you.
“EDIT: not actually advocating violence. But I am advocating that both men and women get off their asses in TX and forcibly fight this law. It’s a bad law –even if one is pro-life. It has long term, far reaching consequences that could easily be expanded and applied to many other aspects of private life, for everyone.“
Oh, wait, nope, she pussied out. No balls. Probably one of those annoying thing like facing legal repercussions for advising people to commit a crime. You know, the thing she was complaining about earlier?
Thing is, this law isn’t bad. I mean, it has some implications I don’t exactly like, but Krasskova has hilariously missed the point of the law.
It isn’t telling her what she can and can’t do with her body.
It’s telling the doctors what they can and can’t do to her body without getting sued.
A woman’s body isn’t being touched, regulated, confined, or controlled by the state. It is simply, to put it in Heathen terms, allowing those who feel they have been wronged by the death of an innocent child at the hands of an abortion doctor, to obtain the Weregeld owed for its death.
Oh dear, another one of those troublesome ancient ways!
Fathers, Grandparents, other relatives, even non-relatives, may now seek redress for the murdered innocent. Those who have been denied their rights and their voices for decades by one of the most violent, bloodthirsty, mass-murdering ideologies in human history, now have a chance to get payback.
As a I am tied to the divine essences of Justice and Retribution, I find this wonderfully delicious. The screaming voices of hundreds of millions of dishonored dead, unheard for so long, finally may get to see a taste of justice done against at least a few of their killers. This is pleasing to the Svartwulf, as it is to Hela whom I serve.
Now, am I happy about opening the door to letting people sue doctors for providing medical services? Hel no I am not. I can absolutely seeing this go the exact same way it did when people gave banks the go ahead to terminate services based on political beliefs, or the same for social media. It is a nuclear Pandora’s box that now opened, will likely be impossible to control or shut.
But the thing is, the pro-choice side has literally left no other options available. They broke the compromise, they have run rampant demanding ever more egregious forms of murder without limits be given to them. They have left only nuclear options on the table. And the other side, the pro-life side, sees themselves as trying to save innocent lives from a bunch of blood thirsty mass murderers.
Of Gods Damn course they were going to use the nukes, and they’ll keep using the nukes, until one side or the other is dead, because there is no more room for compromises anymore. The time to compromise is over. Only Total War remains.
I do not have the right to murder someone to make my life easier or better. No man does. Women somehow managed to get that right, and they have killed exponentially more people than Communism world wide, and in the USA alone they have killed over ten times the number of people as the Nazis. They’re getting pretty close to eleven times.
Krasskova claims this is about not trusting women. Well, we trusted women. We trusted women for decades.
They murdered with that trust, and they did it not to some enemy, but to their own flesh and blood. They killed, they murdered, with joyful hearts, celebrating it as an act of freedom, of righteousness, of moral good.
Even the Nazis saw the final solution as a necessary evil to save their people, not something to be celebrated and praised.
The road to Hel is paved with that trust, for all our good intentions.
We trusted you, and you murdered our sons, our daughters, our brother, our sisters. You stripped them of their humanity, of their divinely granted rights. You dehumanized them, to make your murder seem less of a crime against the innocent.
To make it seem other than a crime against humanity itself.
I am a Heathen. Violence, death, killing, these things do not bother me. Yet to me, my people, and my Gods, Murder is wrong. Krasskova admits abortion is murder, she just doesn’t care. She claims that murder is the price we must pay to trust women and show our trust in women.
You must be your own judge and walk your own path.
As for me, I shall keep my oaths and follow the Path of Hel.
1Look, I will freely admit I’m somewhat guilty of this too. I mix in a fair bit of Enlightenment ideals into my Heathenism at times. And like everyone, I have a justification for my violations. Mine happens to be because the worship of Death carried on past the point when Heathenism was driven away, Hel retained a stronger connection to Midgard than the Aesir during the later time periods, receiving her share of heretics, philosophers, and other non-Christians while Valhalla and other realms no longer got a real supply of the dead. Now, if these “Enlightenment Ideals” such as the inherent value and equality of all life are from her and worked their way up, or from humans and worked their way down is debatable. Still, as I practice Helatru rather than strict Asatru, some of that goes into the Faith Hel has instructed me in as part of my duties to her realm. Maybe it still makes me a hypocrite, idk. I admit sometimes we have to make some compromises for the modern era we live in, but it seems to me that too often those compromises are based not on the Faith, but on some political agenda that stands in opposition to the Faith.
Hi Lucius, re. mandatory abortions: I was thinking specifically rape and incest in the case of minors not eugenics. Otherwise, I stand by my original post. Thanks for a thoughtful response to it.
Actually I do want to add one more thing. There are women out there like me who never want children. It is nearly impossible in this country to request sterilization (unless you already have children. Even then, often doctors will require a husband’s permission). Just last year a young woman sued the NHS in the UK because doctors kept refusing her request. she won, which is great but why did this take a lawsuit? Birth control is great but all methods have a failure rate. Abstinence is great but sexual pleasure need not be yoked to procreation and I would go so far as to say pleasure is sacred in and of itself so why should one, within limits, deny oneself when there are other options to prevent fertility. One of those options should be, as it is for men, sterilization. That is not the case in the US where women seeking this are often told things like, “you’ll change your mind.” (I haven’t. not since I was three). “What if you marry a man who wants children?” (um, I wouldn’t marry such a man). and other such things. The same states that often seek to ban abortion also aren’t really keen on birth control and/or elective sterilization. This is one of the main reasons that I think many of these abortion bans have very little to do with the actual child and everything to do with misogyny (and I’m not much of a feminist. I don’t see “the patriarchy” lurking around every corner). Ok. now I’m heading back to my space. lol Be well, Lucius.
William Heino Sr. said:
I was disturbed by the recent Texas law regarding abortion. I am amazed that the Texas law gives any citizen vigilante the right to sue . Well, I do have my thoughts.
What Texas has proposed to any citizen, they can sue abortion providers…at their expense using a new law which Texas is not quite sure of, and get this, only if you are successful you win $10,000…to pay your legal expenses. In other words, the State of Texas does not want to use up their resources taking a chance of going to court and losing. Why will they not be a party to the suit? They want to leave that burden and cost up to a citizens court vigilante.
However, my thought how can an ordinary citizen sue when an ordinary citizen has not been damaged and therefore no “standing”?
The one person that has “standing” is the father of the child. Let him come forward, after all he has “rights” in determining the ending of a pregnancy. Something Governor Greg Abbott seems to have overlooked, fathers’ rights.
10th Amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
14th Amendment. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United states; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sec. 5. The congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.
6/7/65. United States Supreme Court decides Griswold v. Connecticut.. recognizing constitutional for right to privacy in decisions about birth and using contraception.
1/22/72. United State Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade upholding federal constitutional
protection for a women’s right to decide whether or not to have an abortion.
6/29/92. United States Supreme Court decides Planned Parenthood v. Casey, upholding
constitutional protection of a women’s right to choice.
Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions.
Page 8… Akron v. Askron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. Justice Sandra Day O’connor… She proposed that regulations of abortion be permitted unless they placed an ‘undue burden” on the women’s decision…With O’connor in the majority, the justices also invoked the “undue burden” principle in “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992).. the Justices refused, however, to renounce their decision in Roe.
Page 27. Bigelow v. Virginia. 421 U.S. 809 (1975) The [Virginia ] Weekly’s editor Jeffrey C. Bigelow was prosecuted for violating a Virginia statute that made it a misdemeanor to publish or “encourage or prompt the procuring of abortion.” Bigelow argued that the statute was unconstitutionally over-broad and a violation of his free press rights under the First Amendment. But the Virginia courts declared the statute a proper consumer protection measure,..Bigelow lacked standing… because the “commercial” nature of the advertisement rendered it unprotected by the First amendment…In 1942 the Supreme Court had held that “commercial speech” was unprotected because it was more like an economic inducement than the exposition of ideas. (Valantine V. Chrestenson.) Today commercial speech is considered “quasi-protected” category of expression.
[Black’s. Quasi. Seemingly but not actually:; in some sense; resembling: nearly]
Page 129. Hodgson v. Minnesota 110 S.Ct. 2926 (1990)
Hodgson was the first case in which Justice Sandra Day O’Connor voted to hold a restriction on availability of abortions unconstitutional.
Page 238 Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey The chief problems for the opponents of abortion was the Supreme Court, while accepting that the states could impose regulations, had decided in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) that such regulations could not create “undue burden”… The Webster holding had signaled that the court was willing to change..moving from the much more demanding requirement that the legislature established a “compelling state interest” to the less stringent requirement that any regulation not place an “undue burden” on the person seeking the abortion…The justices invoked the “undue burden” test of Webster to sustain most of the Pennsylvania law, but they refused to take the additional step of striking down Roe.
Texas Governor Gregg Abbott has a want to eliminate rape forever and to mandate vigilante’s to sue abortion providers. If successful, following law, there is a death penalty. For the violant forced rape of innocent people, women, a young ladty, teenage age girls, who is responsible for the abortion, the provider, or the female, or other persons seeking an abortion, both, or all? Governor Abbott fulfilled part of his wish, unfortunately, rape will never be abolished as he had wished. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court will be determining the future of women, young ladies, and teenagers, and Texas governor Greg Abbott’s wish.
Texas Penal Code 19.03, Capitol muder. (8) The person murders an individual under 10 years of age.
And after all that history we can only wonder …this may not only be over just abortion rights, perhaps over these many years the struggle of dominance having to put women in their place thing, finally? I think it is both.
William Heino sr.
A man was triggered; film at 11.
Lucius Svartwulf Helsen said:
Tonight on Dateline: Woman want to get away with ending innocent lives and hates everyone who tells her no.
Krasskova is a Heathen woman that wants to never have children: no ancestors for a woman that belongs to an ancestor-worshiping religion? A very senseless position to hold; very UN-Heathen!