Christians believe that man is made in the image of God, which is to say that man is more valuable than animals. The vast differences between the lowest men and highest animals – our brains are three times the size of the great apes – is biological fact. Because man can plan for the future, communicate in abstractions via language, and has a sense of the infinite, the utilitarian ethics of dealing with animals, in the Christian view, are not appropriate for man. A cattle rancher is perfectly within his rights and decency to raise cattle for slaughter and cull the defective from the herd. Our understanding of genetics comes in no small part due to our experience with animal husbandry, and our responsibility towards animals, at least the higher ones, is to not cause undue suffering in their deaths, for they can apprehend immediate danger and terror.
Some in the Alt Right seek to apply the ethics of animal breeding to humans. They like abortion because it reduces the population numbers of non-whites. They support selective abortion of special needs children with genetic defects. They in some cases support euthanasia for the weak and sick. Even by the Alt Right’s own standards, these ethics will not accomplish the goals they seek. A corollary of Christian morality is that God never requires us to act against our true, long-term self-interest. Support of abortion and other utilitarian approaches to human life are morally wrong, and also against our self-interest as a people.
First, to the numbers argument. If race is but an extended family, then this argument is akin to saying, “I love my children more than the children of my neighbor. Therefore, if I can kill four of my neighbor’s children and one of mine, I’ve increased the love I have for my remaining children, and my position relative to my neighbor’s.” This is ludicrous reasoning, because good is not maximized on a relative basis, but an absolute basis. We are not responsible for governing the behavior of other peoples – if African countries have abortion, for example, we would not be justified to fight a war to make them end it. We are only responsible for our own government and behavior, and our own societies. Killing even one of our own makes us morally responsible for that death, regardless of what other groups choose in relation to their own children. The numbers argument doesn’t even make political sense, as the demographic “fix” for America is in. The problem is not with the pro-life position, but with our immigration, welfare and democratic policies of our polyglot empire. Regardless of how abortion affects relative numbers of blacks and whites, ultimately we can only restore white hegemony through non-democratic means, if democratic means one human one vote. Our problem is not a numbers game, but rather an act of will that must take place among our people such that we are determined to survive. Once that act of will takes place, that change of heart, the non-democratic means will be available to us.
The question then is what sort of position on abortion engenders a survival mentality among our people. At minimum, this requires a pro-child, pro-natal change of values. As I’ve mentioned before, having children, particularly white children that require high investment, is an act of putting oneself in voluntary slavery for two decades in the prime of one’s life. Thanks to easy contraception, childbearing in an intact nuclear family now requires an almost irrational, dare I say pre-rational, preference. In the wild, we only observe it in whites at above replacement levels among the deeply religious. And contra to some of the Alt Right, who believe that a declining population is manageable, even if we achieve our pan-European dream, we still must defend it against other civilizations, most notably the Chinese and insurgent Islam. This requires children, and a birthrate that cannot replace itself places our people in long-term danger.
Parents, then, are pre-rationally caring towards their children. No psychologically healthy parent can look at a child with genetic defects, or special needs caused by circumstances – such as the family I know whose perfectly healthy child is now paralyzed due to a freak infection that inflamed the spinal cord – and see that child as a cost center to be eliminated. Those in the Alt Right who push this, whether through autistic tendencies or misguided reaction to liberal dysgenic policies, alienate from their cause those sectors of the white population that are reproducing. When certain elements of the Alt Right push a moral code that normal white Christian people find appalling, they prevent the emergence of what could be a powerful alliance between the post-religious-right and secular ethnic nationalists. Such posturing, of showing one’s sophistication relative to the jeezus-loving rubes of the heartland, is a form of status signaling that is destructive to the very ends the Alt Right seeks to realize. The mass of Christian whites (as opposed to their self-appointed leaders) are natural allies of the Alt Right, consistently supporting Alt Right immigration policies in opinion polls, and forsaking this alliance could have catastrophic consequences for our people.
Any white society has more than ample resources to provide for our sick and infirm, and an Alt Right government would seek to reassure, not castigate, parents that resources will be available to take care of special needs children. No parent particularly wants such a burden, but with each conception parents are acutely aware of the risk, but it is a risk we take because we love our children. If we want to have pro-natal policies and compensate parents for the costs they endure to the benefit of everyone else, an Alt Right regime would seek to provide social insurance to parents that their children will be cared for, even if something goes wrong in the process.
Furthermore, the availability of abortion is a signal to young women that they can easily escape the consequences of shirking their historical duty to restrict their sexual activity to marriage. Such a policy encourages hedonism and will systematically produce young women unfit to be mothers due to moral degradation in youth. Feminists, of course, love abortion, because feminists loathe both men and mothers, and abortion is a policy that says that fathers have no rights to their children, even in matters of life and death.
What about rape? First, pregnancy from rape is rare, as the nonconsensual nature of the act is not conducive to the survival of sperm to fertilize an egg. Personally, I believe the availability of “morning after” emergency contraception is sufficient to cover true cases of rape, as opposed to those merely claiming it in retrospect. Since the woman has no specific knowledge of an embryo, and 40% of fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant in the uterus, to take a medicine to intentionally eliminate the conditions for implantation is not, in my view, morally problematic. We can have a reasonable pro-life position without giving away the whole store with actual surgical abortion of a fetus. The classic moral question of whether one would save a 2-year-old or a beaker of 20 fertilized eggs (if you could only save one from a fire) is compatible with this position – I would save the 2-year-old, not the fertilized eggs. But if the same choice were between a woman in her first trimester of pregnancy, or the two-year old, a valid choice could arguably be the woman. Hence life begins, in my view, at the moment the mother and child become one flesh at the time of implantation – the mother being the medium and the child being the message, a set of information ready to develop into a human. This may be a minority view among virulent pro-lifers, but I bring it up to demonstrate that a reasonable anti-abortion position is possible that still accounts for outlier cases of rape. Such a position does not even have to be official public policy, as the drugs necessary for emergency contraception are the same as those used for conventional contraception. No one would have sufficient evidence to prosecute even in a 100% pro-life official policy.
I implore the secular Alt-Right to reconsider any support for abortion. What are the odds the feminists are right on this one issue? The alienation of potential allies, if nothing else, would advise the wise against it. We want to win, not show our status relative to the very people – the non-pozzed, heartland Christian whites – we wish to preserve.