Yeah boiii....

Looks like my previous opinion piece raked in quite a bit of money, but it seems that Ukraine is out of the window - or as we say in Hungarian, "lejárt lemez" (oldie, so-last-year) - and the abortion debate is the next "current thing", so, I couldn't resist the temptation to weigh in on this subject as well. So, abortion it is.

A Tale of Two Camps

The abortion debate can be basically broken down to the vicious struggle of two opposing camps, respectively the "pro-life" (anti-abortion) and "pro-choice" (pro-abortion) camps. I'm not going to beat around the bush and pretend to be unbiased: I am firmly in the earlier camp, and I will later explain why.

The pro-life camp includes people - both religious and secular alike, but especially Christians - who believe that a fetus is a human life, and "aborting" (killing) it constitutes murder. Some particularly radical religious fundamentalists go even further and oppose contraception, while the more moderate anti-abortion advocates make exceptions for cases like rape, incest, serious deformities and risk to the mother's life. Some people cynically accuse these people of "being just pro-birth not really pro-life", because a lot of these people are on the political right and oppose welfare. It's a valid criticism of the pro-life camp, but I'll get back to that later in this article.

The pro-choice camp includes feminists, leftists, liberals and various other people who either don't consider a fetus to be a living human being (and thus don't believe that abortion constitutes murder), or simply have "more flexible morals" regarding the non-consensual ending of a human life. Just like the anti-abortion camp, the pro-abortion camp is a diverse bunch and exists on a spectrum, with the more extreme ones not being satisfied with anything less than legalized infanticide (often referred to by the euphemism "post-natal abortion"), while the more moderate ones would be content with abortions being legal only in certain early stages of fetal development.

Once again, I'm not going to pretend to be unbiased here: I believe that these people are disingenuous, because they claim that banning abortion is a gross violation of women's bodily autonomy, while at the same time, these are mostly the same people, who spent the last two years crusading against bodily autonomy (supporting vaccine mandates, the Covid-19 lockdowns, etc.). What are their true motives for abortion then, if not bodily autonomy? Keep on reading, because I will explain the real reason when I write about the social effects of abortion.

Anyway, in debates about abortion, pro-abortion people constantly bring up rape, incest, deformities, danger to mother's life, but....

... rape only makes up for 0.085% of all abortions, danger to mother's life only makes up 0.065%, serious fetal abnormalities only make up 0.666%, etc. Despite being mentioned by pro-abortion advocates 99% of the time, these altogether make up less than 1.402% of all abortions. 92.330% of all abortions are purely elective, not even justified by things like poverty (which supposedly makes up 6.268% of all abortions, allegedly). These people are gaslighting.

As I previously said, these people don't actually care about bodily autonomy (if they did, and if they were consistent, they would have opposed the mask mandates and vaccine mandates, rather than supporting them), and are in fact motivated by something else, either knowingly or not. I will explain that in the next chapter of this article, but to give you a hint: it's about gender relations.

The Social Effects of Abortion

A Tale of Gender Relations: Ooga-booga, something something Paleolithic

We've all heard such a parable before about something. Once upon a time, during the ancient prehistoric times, our caveman ancestors did something, and this is somehow supposed to be relevant to a our modern-day social issues.

Humans are not animals of instinct. We live in a society, we have culture, religion, and all sorts of other excuses to go against our basal instincts. But so did our ancestors - it's easy to fall into the trap of trying to examine prehistoric human societies and earlier humans/hominids from a purely biological perspective, completely ignoring the fact, that just like us, they lived in a society, and probably had a religion and culture too, which would have likely compelled them to violate their instincts the same way we do today too. However, they did not leave any written records behind, and even material evidence is scarce - plus, we generally assume, that hunter-gatherers and other primitive cultures are more in tune with nature, including their own human nature. So, to keep it simple, I will be talking from a mostly biological perspective.

You see, we are not exactly made equal: for a man, all it takes is to ejaculate inside a woman's vagina, while for a woman, it means nine months of awkwardness, nausea and other debilitations until they finally get to painfully deliver the child - or children, in case of twins. Or, to reiterate, a single man can theoretically impregnate a limitless amount of women during a span of a year, while a woman only gets pregnant once a year at most, and they get to bear with all the consequences, they get to breastfeed the babies, etc. So, naturally, it follows that men's sexual reproduction strategy will be only slightly more sophisticated than "spray-and-pray", while women are going to be the more selective sex, because they bear the brunt of the consequences of pregnancy. Men will instinctively want to spread their seeds as far and wide as possible, while women will want the father of their children to be the cream of the crop. What does this translate to? It translates to polygamy.

Some claim, that in the distant past, 17 women reproduced for every man, which naturally implies polygamy. However, this conflicts with early humans supposedly being driven to monogamy by STDs, and also fails to account for things like infant mortality, men being prone to hunting accidents, war and genocide (through which men would be killed or enslaved, women would be raped and impregnated), etc. Not to mention, if we had a tribe of 30 hunter-gatherers, and all 15 women decided to become the harem of just one man, the remaining 14 men would probably lynch him.

Polygamous societies are known to be less stable and more violent than monogamous ones, women have less (or often straight-up nonexistent) rights, rape is common, etc. This is why even cultures and religions that permit polygamy in theory (e.g. Islam with a maximum of 4 wives for a man) tend to reserve it as a privilege of the top 1% in practice (less than 1% of all Muslim men worldwide actually have more than one wife to begin with, let alone the maximum allowed four).

We live in a society, and as such, even though men want to be harem-builders and women are naturally inclined to prefer being part of a strong man's harem over having a weak one all for herself, for much of our written history, society has mandated monogamy - as I said, even supposedly polygamous ones largely reserved the right to have multiple wives to the top 1% of society in practice.

But what happens, when that ceases to be the status quo?

Polygamy results in more violence, more competition, women having less rights (harem culture), a more inbred population (because the male gene pool keeps shrinking every generation), a society with less cohesion (Sultans collecting exotic wives and concubines like Pokémon -> more ethnic diverse -> inevitable ethnic conflict). To say that it makes the dating game more competitive (for men, obviously not for women) doesn't do it justice.

In contrast, monogamy puts the rights and social status of men and women closer to parity, forces men to go for quality instead of quantity (thus, women have to compete too), and creates a more egalitarian and fair dating game. Monogamy also led to the creation of a social contract of sorts between men and women, where women get to enjoy the protection of men (from other men, but still) and access to resources and all while still getting to enjoy the benefits of being the reproductive selectors. All in all, it made our civilization possible.

Return to Polygamy

Then came the sexual revolution in the 1960s and 1970s, where alternative forms of sexuality - as in, alternatives to monogamous heterosexual relationships - were legalized and started to be normalized, the contraceptive pill made the risk of pregnancy less of an issue, abortion was legalized, etc. With abortion being legal, a condom breaking or a pill somehow not working was no longer an issue, as women could just get an abortion. Heck, why even bother with contraception at all, if you can just get an abortion?

Naturally, divorce rates skyrocketed, women decided to opt for "focusing on their careers" (becoming wageslaves and spending more time with their bosses and coworkers than their families) instead of bearing children, etc. Many women tried to - and continue trying to - have it both ways, but the inevitable result of that is exhaustion and depression. Disingenuous feminists will defend this and call it "women's liberation", but really, going from having loving families to being forced to become office-wives of egotistic CEOs is not freedom at all. Needless to say, the result of this has been a demographic catastrophe for Western countries, with the abysmally low birthrates leading to companies being forced to rely on cheap immigrant labour, and the capitalist being the last one left laughing.

And because women are instinctively reluctant to date/marry a man unless he's stronger, taller, smarter and wealthier than her (partially justified by how human reproduction works, but women do this even when they don't intend to have children - can't blame them, it's instincts afterall), them having careers being normalized also led to a large portion of women becoming disillusioned, expecting Prince Charming (basically any man who is wealthier, stronger, smarter, taller, etc. than her) to come swiping them off their feet, only to be met with disappointment instead. And now that more women are acing college while men are falling behind, even more women are going to be disappointed to find out, that a man who is above them either doesn't exist, or is already taken, forcing them to either lower their standards (which they are reluctant to do, to say the least), or to die alone.

But I think we got a little bit off-track. We're supposed to be talking about the social effects of abortion, right? Well, a return to polygamy is one of them.

What happens, when the condom breaks, and abortion is not an option? A shotgun wedding. Well, either that, or the man running off, and the woman becoming a living example of why you shouldn't open your legs to someone who doesn't intend to marry you. In other words: a society where people are reluctant to have sex outside of... well, not necessarily a marriage, but definitely a committed romantic relationship at the very least. And if you ask me, that's the way it should be.

Now, what happens when the condom breaks, but abortion is available on-demand? Nothing. No consequences, besides the woman becoming less fertile. The man runs off, both forget about the one-night adventure, the woman might go complain about how all men are the same, etc. But overall, this means that the little f*ccboi - and the loose women who open their legs to him - face no consequences at all for engaging in an activity that carries the risk of pregnancy. No strings attached sex. Who doesn't want that?

Well, there's a bit of a problem with the normalization of no-strings-attached sex, you see...

Due to how our human instincts work, the normalization of casual sex - de facto polygamy - inherently favors a small minority of men at the expense of the rest. And when large portion of lonely men are forced to wageslave and expend energy and money to support a society that doesn't give them anything in return... well, that's when revolutions happen.

And this is what the abortion debate is really about. Abortion has nothing to do with bodily autonomy: it's about female control over men, sexual powerplay. It is a tool by liberal women and a small minority of men against the majority of men and sane women.

The abortion debate is effectively about monogamy vs (de facto) polygamy, the stability and civilized that monogamy brings versus a return to the Stone Age instinct-driven way of life. All other aspects - such as the morality of ending a life before it even begins - are secondary, and I dare to say, only excuses.

Think about this carefully. I'm fully aware that this so far sounded like nothing but mysoginistic ramblings (even though I never even implied that women are to be blame for any of this, only pointed out what human instincts are like) - and no doubt, I will get a bazillion accusations of being an incel - but the current way of things is largely to blame for the current epidemic of misery and unhappiness among women too. Everyone who lived a promiscuous life or spent too much time "focusing on their career" comes to regret it when they're old and lonely. Also, heed my warning, women: women's rights only exist under monogamy, they are erased under polygamy. Is that what you truly want?

I think we've been all sold a lie.

Men are sold the lie of grinding until they are wealthy, only to find out that money means nothing by the time they're old. By that time, the best they can expect is golddiggers who will cheat on them behind their backs, not true love.

Women are sold the lie of focusing on their careers and getting a taste of every type of men until they are "ready to settle down" - but by the time they're "ready to settle down", it's usually too late, as men prefer debt-free virgins (not literal virgins, but you get the idea).

Is this really the way our society should be going? Nevertheles, THIS, my friends, is what the abortion debate is truly about.

What does this all say about our society?

Our ancestors would all be aghast to learn that we treat our own progeny - the most precious gift possible - like medical waste, or obstacles to a debauched life. Our ancestors fought violent wars against each other to secure a place for their descendants, only for their descendants to straight-up kill their own would-be-descendants. We throw away what is truly important - family - to pursue meaningless things, and make our corporate overlords richer and fatter. We practically enslave the majority of men (and a good portion of women too) to cover up for the mistakes of promiscuous men and women, and once again to make the corporate fatcats richer and richer.

Quite often, the very same liberals/leftists who complain about wageslavery and say "There must be more to life than the eternal grind" are all too eager to support abortion, which is quite literally a proxy for the undermining of family values and human life in the name of corporate capitalism. There must be more to life than the eternal grind, but there won't be until we cease our fixation on capital and recognize what truly matters again.

And no, I'm not one of those ultra-traditionalists, who wants to banish all women into the kitchen and ban premarital sex (though, I do want casual sex - sex outside the bounds of a committed romantic relationship, not necessarily a marriage - to be stigmatized again, but not outlawed). I recognize that a large portion of women have talents in various fields that must not be allowed to go to waste. However, I will not stand by idly, as they sell wageslavery and misery as alternatives to motherhood and communities.

And this leads back to the same point I made in my earlier anti-work / pro-UBI articles: until we start putting people over profit, we are nowhere near what is truly important.

"Give me convenience or give me death" is the motto of our current hyper-consumerist society. All is sacrificed on the altar of hedonistic instant gratification. Nothing is sacred, indeed, the very notion is an anathema to these people, hence their visceral hatred of unborn life being regarded as sacrosanct.