Are we killing children? Is Moloch satisfied? Does he bless the fortunes of our women, perhaps? Does he send rain? Does he send leisure, wealth, property, equality? This is the key point.
It was shocking, to say the least, to make that cognitive shift from the fantasy of moral free choice to the reality of child sacrifice, but that is how our culture operates, as the core. It blinds us, and then it leads us forward, while describing a false reality in vivid detail. I can’t even truly see my thoughts at the time, they seem like a distant mirage – like I wasn’t really thinking. We are taught, like the modern dead-church religions that infest the West, to accept the story as a reality. Trained to believe the everyone deserves to choose, everyone is autonomous, everyone is free,even though our own society doesn’t follow this belief. I’m talking about the easy argument that murder, of course, isn’t ours to choose – but abortion is a unique case. Why? Don’t think about it too much. But first, what is free in the context of a human being? That’s a question I never considered before. I’ve since come to realize that ‘freedom’ in the modern sense means simply that we are free to follow our natures, which is only instinct, which is to reduce humans to animals, to cease being human, to cease being what is ultimately meant by “children of God,” unless they can bootstrap themselves back into consciousness (and there is the rub, but perhaps I’ve said too much, maybe I’m being too harsh).
So why is abortion such a unique case? It’s scandalous how such an obvious biological reality should so visibly describe the reality of our interdependence, and also the insanity – really, the murderous reality – of pure freedom. Maybe God is mocking us; I hear He has a dark sense of humor. Abortion is unique because it creates a contradiction in the liberal logic of autonomy, which is: your freedom exist so long as it does not infringe on the freedom of another. But all human life begins by infringing on the freedom of another, the mother. How did we not notice? This should have torn down the whole conceptual enterprise, and reasonably so: in almost all cases you cannot exercise freedom in reality without altering, infringing, expanding, destroying, or creating the freedoms of another. No one is truly independent, and the modern attempt at human independence is a monstrous act, and liberating, like the murder of children.
Need I go on?
It would probably benefit me to get a little more practical, a little less abstract, etc. So why do women really want abortion so much? Why do so many of them fight for it like death was life itself? Because they confuse life for freedom, possibly. Or is it something else? The answer is difficult, and still too visually complex for me to describe in simple terms. I’d press onward for now.
I read once that modern birth control is completely unnatural, and yet absolutely necessary for female emancipation. As a teen this baffled me for reasons I had difficulty articulating. I simply asked something like: how can something unnatural be necessary for female emancipation?On the surface it was an argument to nature fallacy on my part; just because something is natural doesn’t mean it’s good. But who said anything about good? I want to know about reality. You have to take a few steps back and begin from beginning, so to speak, of nature as it exists just beneath the artificial surface, to arrive at the silent conclusion: that is, that women’s emancipation is unnatural. That’s the reality no one was admitting, and the thing I couldn’t quite put my finger on at the time. This might be acceptable, on the surface of it; after all, to be unnatural for the sake of morality is the object of all civilization. But same argument is used for abortion, that it is necessary for female emancipation. What does this mean? The murder of children is immoral, all would agree. Are we then to suppose, using the same train of thought, that female emancipation is immoral? Perhaps I’ve gone too far. It’s possible I’m using their own terms to attack their own views, which puts me on a poor foundation. But it’s worth considering.
The crux of the argument is of course the question of whether a fetus is a human: an inane distinction if I’ve ever heard it. A fetus will become a human, barring disaster or interference, and that’s all you really need to know. To argue that a fetus isn’t a human is to argue that the future will not exist. How can we support such a madness? A civilization that believes the future will not exist is not a civilization, it’s a collection of primates in a metal jungle, without purpose (and who, incidentally, will never create Shakespeare, accidentally or otherwise). So what does this mean? When a woman, the majority of women, apparently, see the fetus as an invader and obstruction on their personal autonomy – wanting, they say, completely control over their ‘own bodies’ – what are they saying, exactly? To be clear I am aware of the narrative that ‘most women struggle with going through with an abortion,’ and perhaps the celebratory voices are a minority, but it doesn’t change the reality. So what are they saying? What else can they be saying but that the future itself is an invader and obstruction on my present life? And it is, to be sure. The future has a toll to exact from the present. The future costs. It should be amusing, then, to see millennial women on the one hand denounce the Boomer generation’s selfish spending at the expense of the future, and on the other support abortion. They sacrifice to the same great demon, who grants them the freedom from the future, and pleasures in the present.
Another argument is the simple fact that ‘being a single parent is hard’. Yes it is! But no one dares to ask: why are you single, then? They are often quick to blame the man. But you chose the man, freely, we might remind her. Then they might blame themselves and their youth and immaturity. But why did you let yourself choose, then? Or more to the point, why did your father let you choose? Why wasn’t he allow to restrain you? Why doesn’t the patriarchy exist anymore to protect women as they are in truth, not as we imagine them to be in fantasy? But then we are lost, down the rabbit hole, and most women, and a large number of men, stop themselves before they get this far. They blame life, abstractly, as if to say: ‘mistakes were made’. Denying, implicitly, a direct cause or possible solutions, as said solutions would undoubtedly require self-examination, and ignoring the pattern for the sake of the details.
I supported abortion for the sentimentally simplistic equation ‘freedom equals good,’ the idea that choice for the individual is an inviolable right. Many on the religious right still try and maintain that fantasy, framing the argument as being about the individual rights of the fetus. This is a false and ideologically fatal direction of attack – it certain didn’t persuade me at the time, and it won’t persuade the majority lost to madness. I was, they are, trapped by the idea that we are somehow not bonded by threads of action and reaction to every other ‘individual’, and by biological inheritance from our parents, grandparents, great great great grandparents; to hold this belief is to deny reality as it truly is, and fall victim to the liberal reality of independent motes of personality which have no history or unconscious dependence. They deny the world without seeing the world. They ignore reality, and that ignorance precludes any real attempt to change the world for the better, because they are wholly caught up in the delusion that their better world can already exist today, if they only believe.