Given all the noise lately about abortion, as a moral litmus test, I might as well further clarify my own views.
I like to start with the question, “Who owns a woman’s uterus?”
In some places, the “owner” is “The King”.
Given that I believe in the right to contract oneself to another, and the right of like-minded persons to develop fraternal associations, etc., such as to share responsibility for contracts, then there are nuances in terms of the various ways that I believe that “ownership” can be negotiated, or ought to be legal to negotiate. To say that only State-approved religions or the Atheist State itself has the right to dictate how such a negotiation may go is narrow-minded, in my view.
I believe that a human being ought to have the right to contract him or herself to another, such as what used to be known as “marriage” or indentured servitude.
However, in the absence of such a contract, a non-contracted uterus is private property, such that just because one might invite a friend over for dinner doesn’t mean that he or she is entitled to leave behind an agent to reside in one’s home for 18 years. To me, the anti-abortion crowd is saying that ‘if you don’t want a new entitled resident in your home then don’t ever invite a friend over for dinner.’
Who pays for the abortion or the maintenance of the child? Also highly politicized. I believe that at the least a society ought to be consistent. If one’s uterus belongs to “The King,” then “The King” ought to be in charge of feeding whatever issue or removing it perhaps prior to significant royal burden applying.
I do not hold that a parasitic life is “innocent” regardless of its “humanity” or lack thereof. When it comes to unconscious and amygdala activity, including that induced by hypnosis or brainwashing, then “human” hardly applies.
Moreover, any religious or other “morally” justified population policy that does not recognize that there may be a limit to the number of persons who can be sustained by a given environment, or to justify the invasion and taking over of resources or lands from “heathens” when those bounds are exceeded, is not a sustainable policy.
While most environments can manage a limited number of foreigners, imbeciles, and slaves, there is no environment that can manage an unlimited number of them. The same would apply to an excess of “leaders”.
One method of controlling reproduction was developed by the infamous Kellogg brothers. To summarize, the ingestion of plenty of fiber and otherwise inducing “regularity” by means of laxatives or enemas was supposed to reduce male masturbation; however, what it accomplishes instead is prostate stimulation through intestinal inflammation, particularly aggravated by the immune-suppressing qualities of the grain “flake” extrusion process.
I believe that a chronically inflamed prostate may well inspire male homosexuality in susceptible populations. Since that is not reproductive, then, sure, eating a lot of cornflakes may indeed slow population growth.
Another method of controlling reproduction is calorie and nutrient restriction such as promoted by vegetarianism and other supposedly longevity-enhancing regimens which operate under the principle that undereating produces fewer free radicals (whereas healthy food contains antioxidants which counteract them). Longevity obsession, like narcissism, also tends to produce homosexuality, which, is non-reproductive, and further, vegetarianism may also result in intestinal and thereby prostate inflammation in those not equipped with either a rumen or a robustly diverse intestinal ecosystem. Or for that matter, with a severely nutritionally deficit diet one can eliminate ovulation, reduce sperm count, and eliminate the desire for sex altogether.
Vaccines themselves may also reduce fertility through excessive conditioned inflammation brought about by a premature onslaught of foreign proteins into the bloodstream of an insufficiently developed child. Where is the “moral outrage” here?
The development of the human self includes a stage commonly known as “The Terrible Twos” whereby the young human develops a sense of being distinct from the caregivers, most particularly, the mother. Prior to that point, that human is not all that human except in potential and appearance, not even having a distinct identity other than mere facial manerisms. The human infant is particularly helpless among animals such as to be parasitic. When such a parasite is a welcome addition to a family having plenty in the way of resources and potential for a fulfilling life, that is a different story than being born under torturous overcrowding, danger, and lack of hope.
Thus, vigorous pro-life rhetoric is a signal of privilege such that deficit of basic needs does not even consider in the adherent’s life view. In other cases it is a sense of entitlement to the labor and resources of others, which is a rationalization also adopted by otherwise pro-choice feminists desirous of enslaving sperm donors to their lifestyle maintenance, and that of their issue, as almost as an afterthought.
Degradation of masculinity is also a population control mechanism, ultimately, unless counteracted by forced reproduction and then slavery to that process such as by means of the welfare state.
Placing God in the sole position of demographic monitor denies the capacity for mathematics, sociology, and economics He engendered within us. Lacking that capacity however does not make us more human just like relying on it does not make us more reptilian, even if the former deficit more likely will result in devolution to reptilianism such that refusal to acknowledge these realities will result in either our extinction or lack of humanity.
Similarly the death penalty and assisted suicide address uncomfortable demographic realities. Whereas an undesirable, like a “scapegoat” can be driven out to the wilderness to suffer and die under the elements or by dehydration, if there is no more in the way of depopulated, unobservable “wilderness” in our surveillance society then we are either going to have to figure out how to manage it, or to Balkanize into our own theocratic nation-states.
Perhaps one day our own surveillance technology can be put into individual service such as to be able to detect whether our homes, uteruses, intestines, and bloodstreams contain unwanted strangers. However, pessimistically, I presume that instead that “The King” will profess a greater interest in terms of invasion, occupation, and eviction within our own bodies.