May
25th 2012
Posted under Conservatism & Culture & Ron Paul
Poster, Felton, thought the topic of selective abortion & the “gay gene” was worthy of a thread. Cross posting from my blog:
Our Man in Amsterdam
Peter Thiel: billionaire, gay, Christian, Ron Paul Supporter, sea-steading investor, Bildeberger.
That guy is Alt Right.
SWPL types have engaged the eugenics program, really cutting into the Down Syndrome numbers, with prenatal testing and abortion. Whether there is a ‘gay gene’ or not almost doesn’t matter—one is sure to be claimed, and the eugenics program and the bio-ethics of SWPL will abort away. Perhaps a chap like Peter Thiel can appreciate where this ship is heading and be encouraged to fund the Alt Right, beyond the Ron Paul program, and begin to tackle and exploit an opportunity for serious metaphyscians.
RedPhillips on 26 May 2012 at 3:21 am #
You probably need to explain what SWPL means to those who don’t know.
C Bowen on 26 May 2012 at 10:25 am #
SWPL= stuff white people like
e.g. a stereotypical liberal white
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/
TRY on 26 May 2012 at 12:39 pm #
I understood the SWPL. It was the rest of the post that was difficult to follow.
Amsterdam? Peter Thiel, being gay, Christian, and a Paul supporter, is somehow connected to a eugenic plot of SWPL and AltRight people to find the gay gene so parents can selectively abort gays in the womb like Down Syndrome children?
RedPhillips on 26 May 2012 at 5:21 pm #
I knew what SWPL meant, I just figured some readers might not. It’s kind of an inside baseball word.
The point Hawthorn is making is what are gays going to do when the liberal value of acceptance of homosexuals starts clashing with the liberal value of abortion.
RedPhillips on 26 May 2012 at 5:31 pm #
The untold scandal of the dramatic decline of Down Syndrome births is that faced with this choice most mothers chose to abort.
“An estimated 92 percent of all women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to terminate their pregnancies, according to research reviewed by Dr. Brian Skotko, a pediatric geneticist at Children’s Hospital Boston.’
Given these appallingly high numbers, surely there are a lot of self-identified Christians who had been nominally pro-life who chose to kill their Down Syndrome baby. (92% strikes me as high so there may be some confounding variables here. Such as pro-life mothers who know they will not abort opting not to get the test as I suggest below.)
Pro-life Christian mothers-to-be should refuse the testing to begin with.
C Bowen on 26 May 2012 at 6:09 pm #
The point is more what might a hyper-intelligent, right inclined, super rich elite be willing to fund to stave off a genocide. What else might fall under such a rubric?
Mostly, just interested in challenging imagination to deal with our set of problems and encourage reworking of political alliances, in this case, a new rich and powerful benefactor.
The Amsterdam reference is from Pulp Fiction; that Thiel is a Bildeberger, gay Christian and right leaning…It might have been a reach, but it sounds cool to me.
Yes–women and rather the families should refuse the test. Nothing good comes from having the info.
TRY on 26 May 2012 at 11:52 pm #
It is indeed ironic that leftists support abortion when it disproportionately hits their key demographics.
Hawthorne on 27 May 2012 at 1:29 am #
CFH is having tech difficulties, so I will post for Savrola:
“Scientific information about the causes of down-syndrome, combined with the statistics tell us that Christian women likely to be mothers of down-syndrome children are also likely not to be that conservative or pro-life when push comes to shove.”
Feltan on 29 May 2012 at 9:28 pm #
The current rationale for legalized abortion is self-serving and, at best, weakly justified. It hangs together only as long as one considers the fetus an inanimate lump of tissue with the same rights as, say, a cancerous tumor.
The notion Hawthorn wrote about above is intriguing. Of course it all hinges on finding a “gay gene,” but if that is ever found what will the left do? Even in the U.S., selective abortions are made all the time (http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/29/pro-life-groups-hidden-camera-footage-shows-complicity-in-sex-selective-abortions/)
Regards,
Feltan
C Bowen (Hawthorne) on 29 May 2012 at 9:48 pm #
Feltan;
Does one have to find a gay gene to sell that one has found a gay gene?
The selective sex stuff is just the beginning; it is what the media will let us in on (along with Down Syndrome.) Does it take much imagination to guess what others might be selling out there in the big money of baby making? I mean, for an ethical example, someone in that field called a Doctor, gave Octomon 8 kids.
Where I disagree with you, Feltan, is that de Sade would have said something like, “well if abortion is murder, and I suspect it is, so what?”
Or if a fetus is trespassing, then technology should be geared towards the ability to deliver a baby at the earliest possible moment.
But if certain traits are to be genocided by choice–it is something to attack with a new set of tactics that can be expanded to cover other topics…
Feltan on 30 May 2012 at 4:46 am #
Hawthorne,
I am not sure we are in disagreement.
Selective genocide is another outrage. I don’t think it is superior to the outrage of murder in general, but it has the advantage of offending people who might otherwise not contemplate the horror of the abortion mills.
I would like to hear what you have to say about a new set of tactics.
Regards,
Feltan
C Bowen (Hawthorne) on 30 May 2012 at 8:51 pm #
Well, the first tactic is to lead with being against selective abortion/designer babies. All rhetoric and our interactions with other people, particularly “liberals”, that touch on the subject should revolve around the notion.
Actually engaging groups explaining your rationale can be done–it at least can be tried.
The stalemate is desired by the ruling parties; why not keep trying to monkey wrench things, and forging new combinations for alliances?
I should add, I am not going to solve all these things–bio-ethics is not something I study, but I test things out on folks and get a sense of what might carry a crowd.
I think we would all be better off if the Eugenics crowd just came out and said that is what they are up to–are any of us so adamantly against sterilization for repeated abuses of baby making, like the guy in Tennessee with 30 kids? Is that something to work with? Work both sides?
Feltan on 01 Jun 2012 at 3:26 am #
Well Congress just failed to pass a ban on selective abortions based on the sex of the fetus.
I wait for the outrage from all the feminist groups. The “war on women” never had a better poster child, but the thought of restricting legalized murder, even a little bit, seems to offend the feminists more than the killing their own kind.
Regards,
Feltan
C Bowen on 01 Jun 2012 at 10:39 am #
No, Congress failed by design to make a new federal crime; this is an old and failed tactic of the stalemate–nobody seriously thinks that female swing voters will suddenly see the light with this act of theater.
And when you repeat the mantra of Republican pro-lifers, the feedback loop is complete, and the stalemate remains.
Feltan on 01 Jun 2012 at 2:16 pm #
Hawthorne,
Indeed. But if female activists are not outraged at the prospect of sex selective abortions, would you expect homosexuals to be more active in trying to save their own kind — which is the premise of the original post?
Regards,
Feltan
C Bowen on 01 Jun 2012 at 4:41 pm #
My thinking goes that there is an opportunity to get the genocide term into political discourse, which can be expanded and adopted elsewhere.
Dealing with feminists is a tough call–they’ll just call it a myth and still call critics of the cultures and immigrant groups that practice as much, racists etc.
But anyway, it is a good state level tactic, to ban sex selective abortion, but my goal, I think our goal, is bigger then ending an abhorrent industry. There is a strong element of pro-life/pro open borders and so forth, and we need to ditch that, right?
Feltan on 01 Jun 2012 at 8:24 pm #
Hawthorne,
You lost me on your last sentence. Not sure of the linkage between pro-life (which I am), and pro-open borders (which I am not).
Regards,
Feltan
C Bowen (Hawthorne) on 01 Jun 2012 at 8:42 pm #
Perhaps I should have set the stage on what the discussion is first–and I understand you are here, and therefore likely not “open borders.”
I am suggesting we have accomplished nothing allying with those who take a “pro-life/right to life” style arguments, who are also for some variant of open borders (perhaps they are against “illegal” immigration, but favor “legal” immigration.)
So why keep beating a dead horse? We should be collectively smart enough to scheme up something more effective.
And getting the term, ‘genocide’ into the political discourse offers other opportunities to reassert political sovereignty in general.
Sidenote: Paul was able to rally what is left of the Americanist faction; it needs new groups now.