Abortion Rhetoric for Normies

To use on normies that is. Not the single liberal women, you’re not going to convince them, but you can trigger them and convince the onlooker. The pro-abortion crowd doesn’t have a leg to stand on as far as logic goes; every argument they use is squid ink to disguise an infanticidal instinct which is incompatible with male civilization. And it’s not hard to make them blow their cover.

I usually wouldn’t bother with a post like this, but Twitter has been nothing but abortion talk for a solid week now and I’m taking pleasure in how destroyed the Left is feeling at the moment. So here’s a better set of weapons to trigger them more.

“A fetus is not a person”. That’s what you’ll usually hear. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that a baby in utero is not a person is an extraordinary claim. Every expecting mother will call it “my baby”. If she has a miscarriage, the normal human reaction is “my baby died”, not “oh, my body expelled some nonhuman fetal tissue, better grab a rag and clean this up”. Most normal human beings consider killing a pregnant mother a double homicide. Most of them consider beating a pregnant woman to induce a miscarriage a murder. The law prosecutes both crimes as such.

In other words, tell them that the burden of proof is on them. They have to prove it’s not a person. The interpretation of a child in utero as “not a person” is contrary to common sense morality and the way we treat pregnant women in everyday life. Demand their criteria for personhood. They’ll usually say something like this:

“Science says that a fetus is not a person”. Science describes the properties of a fetus. Science cannot determine the personhood of anybody. Personhood is a moral issue. If science says that a fetus is not alive, neither is a person in a coma. Science also tells us that the fetus is extremely likely to become a living human being if unmolested. Is it okay to kill someone in a coma who is extremely likely to regain consciousness?

“It’s not conscious”. Neither am I while I’m asleep, but that doesn’t make it ok to kill me. As soon as I regain my consciousness, I’m going to want to live, and that’s a perfectly reasonable moral assumption that makes it evil to kill sleeping people and people in comas. Same for babies. It’s extremely likely to gain consciousness soon, and once it does, it’s going to want to live.

“It can’t feel pain, it doesn’t know it’s being killed”. Again, neither does someone in a coma. Someone in a coma who has almost no chance of recovery is a different moral dilemma. The baby is nontrivially likely to gain consciousness and awareness of its surroundings if you don’t kill it.

“It’s not fully developed”. Neither is a baby after it’s born, neither is a 5-year old, neither is a 12-year old. At what point is development enough to consider it a human being? Why do you mark a specific point as a transition between human and not human? A retard with a 50 IQ is not fully developed, does not have the full faculties of a normal human; can it be killed at will?

“Birth is when it becomes a person because before that it’s dependent on its mother to live”. It’s also dependent on its mother to live after it’s born, until the age of four or five when its labor could be worth the cost of feeding it. You don’t gain the power of life or death over someone just because they’re dependent on you, at least not in normie morality. Before birth, can’t live without you, after birth, can’t live without you. No moral difference.*

“Your sperm has human DNA in it, why isn’t jacking off murder?” My cum isn’t going to become a human being by itself. An embryo implanted in your uterine lining will.

“I can do what I want with my body. The fetus is part of my body” No. A Siamese twin is also connected to your body. It’s murder to kill your Siamese twin.

“The baby is inhabiting my body without my consent.  I didn’t choose to have it in me, I therefore have the right to get rid of it” Babies are the result of sex the same way death is a result of stabbing. Yes, you can try to stab someone in a way which will not kill them, but if they die anyway despite your precautions, you’re still morally responsible for killing them. You chose to do something that often results in the creation of a human being that cannot live without you, you bear the moral consequences of that act.

“I can kill a trespasser in my house, I can kill an unwanted baby in my womb” Even in a state with great castle doctrine, if I open my front door and put a sign out front that says “open house”, I’ll still be guilty of murder if I shoot everyone who walks in.

“You’re restricting a woman’s right to choose…” Nobody has the right to choose to commit murder. If a baby is a person, it’s murder. Why is a baby not a person?

“Why do I have to be forced to carry to term and give birth if I don’t want to?” As a man, I’m legally forced to care for a child I didn’t choose to have for eighteen full years. You can’t do nine months?

“Making abortion illegal will result in a lot of child neglect” It’s not the state’s job to stop you from being a bad parent outside of extreme abuse. It is the state’s job to punish you for committing murder. If it was a binary choice between being abused and murdered, most people would rather be abused than murdered.

“Making abortion illegal just makes abortions more dangerous. They’re still going to happen” Wrong. How many abortions happen in Taliban-controlled territory? Yeah, exactly. And if you’re so desperate to murder your child that you kill yourself in the process, good riddance dumbass.

“If you’re pro life you should be XYZ position”. I’m not pro-life, I’m anti-murder.

“You should do XYZ to prevent abortion instead of banning it” Policy that prevents murder from happening is a good thing. Doesn’t mean you can legalize murder.

“What about in the case of rape” That is a tiny percentage of abortions. The baby is innocent of the rape. If you get raped, the hospital will give you a morning-after pill if you ask for one. (Don’t say this part to normies, but most women are actually going to want to keep the rape baby. They know it’s strong seed, no matter how they choose to rationalize it. Notice it’s always pro-abortion men who hammer on the “rape exception”, not the women)

“What about incest” If it was rape, see the above. But really bitch, you want to fuck your brother and then be allowed to commit murder on top of it?

“What if the mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy” Also very rare. This is a moral dilemma. Some mothers, when presented with this choice, save the baby rather than themselves. It’s a dilemma precisely because both of them are people. But sure, you can have this one.

I also have to take a minute to hammer on the moral weakness of “conservatives” who shy away from prosecuting the woman who gets an abortion. Prosecuting the doctor for murder and giving the mother a light penalty is hypocrisy that lends ammo to the pro-abortionists. If abortion is murder, the mother who gets an abortion is a murderer. If you hire a hitman to kill someone, both you and the hitman get prosecuted for murder. “Pro-lifers”, losers that they are, like to pretend that women are gaslit or pressured into abortion. No way. Women want to kill their kids. “Post-partum depression” almost always results in ideation of infanticide, and without the father or another male around, many women go through with it, like a female animal eating her cubs. Infanticide and hypergamy go hand in hand. So yes, the leftists are right, anti-abortion is the Patriarchy. But without the Patriarchy, women will kill their kids a lot, both before and after birth, and not really be too bothered about it.

*The only logically consistent argument for abortion is in fact this; that the parents have the right of life or death over their children because the children depend on them to live. The vast majority of cultures in history, from China to the Greeks, to the Romans, to the Aztecs and the Inca, Pagan Europe, Carthage, etc. take this stance on infanticide. Naturally, this is up to the father and not the mother. But it also requires allowing infanticide up until the age of four or five, when the child can walk away on its own two legs and become a slave or a servant for someone else, thus no longer totally dependent. Not allowing infanticide is almost exclusively a Christian Europe thing, and it still happened quite a bit anyway. Infanticide isn’t totally against GNON’s will, when you’re a stern Spartan patriarch throwing cripples and retards and bastard children into the river. (This is one of the few points on which GNON and God disagree) But today, as practiced, it is contrary to GNON’s will and serves the purposes of DROM (demons real or metaphorical) so I’m against it.

20 thoughts on “Abortion Rhetoric for Normies

  1. Sublime rhetoric, my dude. It’s good to not have any fantasies that abortion does not constitute killing a human being (murder is a legal and moral category). Perhaps in some more civilized time in the future, we can use abortion as a tool of governance both at the state and familial level rather than as a moral bludgeon and means of sacrificing to Moloch.


  2. I was never that big into anti-abortion, but the pro-abortion side always seemed a bit off to me. Having gone through a pregnancy cycle as father, I now understand why: from the first signs of life, its your child. 8 weeks echo: nose, mouth, hands, everything. Pro-choice is pro-infanticide.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Is it really contrary to Gnons will as practiced today, though? There are two main types of women that get most of the abortions: underclass and coastal upper class. If either of those categories are forced to reproduce, you get even more kids with single mothers who will grow up to vote left. Women in patriarchal, right-voting families do not get abortions.

    A ban on abortion is only effective when coupled with patriarchy written into law.


    1. This is true, bans on abortion will not solve dysgenics without patriarchy. I suppose it isn’t all that dysgenic, aside from keeping smart people from having babies. But those people are the ones who are better at using birth control in the first place.

      I’m skeptical of the idea that the Left will abort and birth control itself out of existence while right-wingers outbreed them. They don’t need to have kids to have more leftist voters because they can vampire the kids of right-wingers into leftists via the media-academic complex

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Wasn’t trying to imply that the Left will abort itself out of existence (the third world is a steady enough supply of flesh), I was simply stating that abortion doesn’t pose as much of a threat to the Right as it does to the Left. Though I suppose the Left still feels that abortion is worth it in order to maintain their Bioleninist grip on women, and maybe they’re correct, maybe abortion IS worth it for the Left. They see a choice between preserving the lives of their future comrades, and ensuring the loyalty of existing ones, and choose the latter. Although the left uncontrollably moves ever lefter, so I doubt they could choose the former even if they wanted to.

        When it comes down to it, how does banning abortion, absent of any other legal changes, help us in the here and now? How does it help Alabama? It increases the value of family by increasing the risk of single motherhood, which is a step towards the Jimmian idea of increasing the value of family by introducing the risk of indiscriminate rape, beating etc. We on the Right must make the choice between turning a blind eye to the infanticide the Left imposes on itself, or gaining patriarchal allies through lowering hypergamy. Alabama made it’s choice.

        Recall your post on Carthage. Would the Romans have wanted the Carthaginians to put a stop to their sacrificial rituals? Now imagine a hypothetical scenario where Carthage is a vassal of Rome who faces both the external threat of Germanic barbarians and the internal threat of a Carthaginian uprising. Carthaginian troops are needed to bolster Rome’s defence, but at the same time, the men of Carthage may attempt to overthrow the occupation. Now what should Rome do about Carthage’s heathen traditions?

        My point is that we’re dealing in half-measures, and the question of whether or not a half-measure will help you or fail you never has a definitive answer, one can only pray, as I’m sure those Alabama Republicans are doing.


      2. At the end of the day, I advocate banning abortion, because the Right has limited time and we need as much family as we can possibly get. It also gives women one less reason to vote Left.

        The left performs infanticide but those babies wouldn’t influence anything until turning 18 anyway, and by my calculations we have no more than 10 before Shit Hits The Fan.

        Just wanted to make the point that it’s not totally black and white.


      3. White Leftists already ARE aborting themselves out of existence. It’s why they’re so desperate to bring in hundreds of millions of IQ-55 Third World peasants. How many elections would Leftist candidates on the national level have won since 1973 without the (highly illegal, but who’s counting at this point?) wetback vote?

        They already have to cheat massively and brazenly in every national election in a way that will make history professors in the future laugh out loud in the classroom. They HAVE to fight every attempt to put even the flimsiest obstacle in the way of Paco the Wetback crossing the border, signing up for Los Gibsmedats, and voting eighteen times in your local Governor’s election, up to and including waging lawfare to prevent enforcement of existing laws because “racism” and “disparate impact,” i.e., they know exactly what they are doing. They HAVE to empty out the asylums, load them onto school buses, and lead the mumbling, doped-up crazies by the hand into the voting booth, then press the big shiny button with the “D” on it for them, then get them back on the bus and have them vote at least once in every borough of the city. They HAVE to “find” truckloads of pre-filled ballots, 100% for Democrats, in every close election. Groups like ACORN didn’t vanish when Project Veritas shined the light of truth on them–they scattered like cockroaches and changed their names, but they’re still filling out vast numbers absentee ballots for “homeless people,” who have names like Mr. Crack Pipe and Mr. Zig Zag, Mr. Jack Daniels and Mr. Johnny Walker, with street addresses that are vacant lots or bus stops. They have been caught again and again filling out absentee votes in the names of dead people in New York and Chicago so much that it’s a “safe” joke for late-night TV comedians to make.

        These aren’t the actions of a group confident that power is about to drop into its hands.


        1. America of 1965 was more leftist than America of 1900 was more leftist than America of 1776. Leftists don’t need to have kids, will not be outbred under the current arrangement, because they have control of the culture and can vampire the kids of fertile right wing peasants into leftists.

          If they were smart, they would realize that they don’t need to import immigrants to debase the culture and make America leftist. They are not smart, they are insane and stuck in a holiness spiral, in which the leftists confident that they have power are defeated by the holier leftists terrified that the Right is about to enact a fascist coup and give them helicopter rides. The intelligent, educated DC leftist is insanely terrified, truly and legitimately believes that Trump is about to enact The Handmaid’s Tale and start gassing Guatemalans.

          It wants to bring in brown serfs because bringing in brown serfs is unquestionable religious dogma, not because they have a master plan, not because they need to do so.


  4. If you shove a person off a ship and into the ocean, you have a moral duty to risk your life to save them. Well, if you spread your legs…


  5. >without the father or another male around, many women go through with it, like a female animal eating her cubs.

    I’ve never heard this before, so I’m curious if you’ve seen this happen a few times, heard of it in your circle, or it’s going around the internet.


  6. There is only one argument needed in its favor to win me over, roids do it far more often than other races of man.


  7. We could use a generic term for non-reactionaries, something similar to the Israelites in the Bible referring to outsiders as ‘gentiles.’ All of the current terms (normie, npc, Puritan, etc.) have specific meanings that don’t quite carry over. ‘Whig’ would work.


  8. The left celebrates abortion as though it is an essential lifestyle accessory. “Pro-Choice” in their rights-obsessed minds goes along with some deluded brand of moral righteousness. If you have an issue with it, it’s like there is something wrong with you. They use their pussy hat platform to shame while the abortionists continue the slaughter. Disturbing in more ways than one.


  9. Why bother with a baby that has down syndrome or some other mental retardation?
    It may be a miracle when born, but once it reaches puberty its cuteness factor swiftly fades.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s