09 February, 2017

Biology Does Not Lie: Why abortion is evil

Is it sexist to make moral judgments about abortion? If it is, then it's also sexist to make the moral judgment that it's sexist to make moral judgments about abortion. If it's intolerant to weigh in on people's choices, then it's also intolerant to weigh in on someone's choice to weigh in on people's choices. If it's bigoted to claim that premarital sex is wrong, then the claim that it's bigoted to claim that premarital sex is wrong is also bigoted. If it's bigoted to force morality, then it's also bigoted to force the morality that morality shouldn't be forced.

Those are all called self-refuting statements, and they're all coming from leftists in the United States. They're completely and utterly false, because they all violate the law of noncontradiction, which states that A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time. It's just like the claim to be absolutely certain that absolutes don't exist. It's just like the claim that it's true that there is no truth. It's just like, for a more morbid example, using English to claim to be unable to speak a word in English.

When it comes to abortion in particular, it isn't even the woman's body that we're talking about with respect to the above, and anyone who blindly asserts the "my body, my choice" lie is, by the leftist definition at least, a science denier. Why? Because a body part always has the exact same DNA as the body that it's a part of. Is an unborn child's DNA 100% identical to the mother's DNA? No, because you need both a sperm and an egg to make a child. Not only is the unborn child genetically distinct from the mother, but, because of the fact that a female mother can carry a male child, also chromosomally distinct half of the time as well. When it comes to the unborn child, the mother is simply that — a carrier. Saying that abortion is "your body, your choice" is logically on par with implying that someone driving or riding in a car is physically part of the car, which is completely false.

The unborn is genetically programmed to become a distinct human being — if it's genetically programmed to become human, then it's human. If it's genetically programmed to become a person, then it's a person. Any attempt to change this definition is the definitional retreat fallacy. Consciousness? If consciousness were an appropriate marker then someone in a coma wouldn't be a person either. Sentience? Alcoholism impairs one's senses, so is a drunk person a person? By that logic, no. Changing the definition of "person" is exactly the same thing that slave-holders and Nazis did to justify their behavior, so anyone on the left who plays the race card is a total hypocrite if they treat the unborn in this way.

Ah, but a car is not a human being, while the mother is, you say, right? How often is there a dilemma with regard to saving lives? Only 0.7% of abortions are because of rape — the only case where there is no choice 9 months before pregnancy, and even then, aborting what someone else can otherwise adopt is implying the malignantly narcissistic narrative that if you cannot take care of a child then no one else can — and only 0.3% of abortions are because of some life-threatening complication (like an ectopic pregnancy, for example) to the mother resulting from a pregnancy — because it would be better for one (the mother) to live than for two (both the mother and the unborn child) to die, this is the only legitimate exception to the rule. Another 0.7% are due to birth defects, but a significant number of the birth defects in question are non-fatal (case in point: Down syndrome) and therefore inexcusable (on a related note, even if a defect is likely to cause the death of an unborn child anyway, abortion is merely an addition of an insult to injury and therefore inexcusable regardless). About half of that particular 0.7%, moreover, are cases of birth defects resulting from consensual incest, and therefore a natural consequence of such — using abortion as a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to this is therefore inexcusable when two people shouldn't have consented to incest in the first place. That leaves 98.3% of abortions for purely, get this, economic reasons. Or, as I like to call them, selfish, greedy, sexually narcissistic, lame excuses.

Why do I call them that? Because anyone who cannot afford a child cannot afford sex either, period. Pleasure is the tertiary purpose of sex — the secondary purpose of sex is spiritual spousal connection, and the primary purpose of sex is to manufacture children; therefore, sex must therefore never be had in vain. When two impoverished youth consent to sex, regardless of whether or not they want to admit it, they are actually having sex in vain by elevating the tertiary purpose into a primary position, which is the most selfish, self-centered, malignantly narcissistic attitude toward sex that one can possibly have. The sexual narcissism — not to mention greed — that is having consensual sex out of wedlock while being unable to afford a child is the root cause of what the pro-life movement is truly opposed to. Until leftists begin to make this connection between the sexual degeneracy epidemic and the abortion epidemic, they will continue to suffer under the Trump/Pence administration.

With that said, as far as being able to enjoy sex is concerned, waiting until marriage also helps in that case as well. The brain becomes flooded with dopamine during sexual activity, which makes it just as addictive as cocaine use — the more sexual partners you have early, the less enjoyable sex becomes later on due to dopamine overload.

So how do you solve this problem without creating a tyrannical government? By fundamentally overhauling the currently broken sex education system so as to systematically red-pill people on the dangers of not being abstinent and black-pill children and teens into being monogamous, that's how. Sex education must mean educating kids as early as humanly possible — I'm talking the upper grades of elementary school — on the dangers of loose sexual morals. It must mean gratuitous, graphic images in 4th grade health books of exactly what sexually transmitted infections do to the body, coupled with the most graphic of descriptions burned into their minds with the goal of traumatizing them into premarital abstinence. It must mean correcting the record — before puberty — on the porn industry's narrative of sexual behavior. It must mean giving statistical comparisons of the various methods of birth control and their effectiveness of stopping pregnancy, noting that only abstinence is 100% accurate. Finally, it must mean educating kids on the neurology behind sex, what makes sex addictive, and why it actually becomes less enjoyable the more partners you have. Sex education must be fundamentally rewired to persuade people to want to wait until marriage. This is choice. Abortion isn't.