A Darwinian argument for slaughtering women who seek abortion

[Inquisitor]

As far as evolution is concerned, women who seek abortion are nothing but evolutionary refuse on the rest of the species - having no rights whatsoever, lacking no intelligence or sound judgement.

They have no rights but what serve the interest of the state and the tribe, and their quaint little notions such as "Roe V Wade" don't have to be overturned to begin with - the state can merely ignore them, or force a woman to procure those rights at the barrel of a gun, or the hilt of a knife. The only right is might - and it comes out of the barrel of the state's guns.

The cheapest and most effective way of dealing with these subhumans would be merely to suspend all quaint notions of "constitutional rights", and simply execute them in large numbers - any woman who shows up at a hospital seeking an abortion for an unplanned child could merely be sent off to be executed, as DNA tests could easily verify an unplanned pregnancy, leaving no need to waste taxpayer dollars on a trial.

In the case of men who father multiple children with illiterate whores, they could be executed as well, or castrated - this would be an efficient means of eliminating scum who have nothing to offer evolution but bastards. And the superior members of the tribe, such as male and female scientists, judges, lawyers, and such would be better off.

It's time to stop pretending that the weak, degenerate, and feral incapable of controlling their base impulses, have any rights at all, and let evolution merely take its natural course, rather than hold back our natural urge to purge degenerates and defectives from our mist.

 

[Inquisitor]

(For the record, this is satirical, merely showing where certain world views naturally lead).

 

[BobbyT]

(For the record, this is satirical, merely showing where certain world views naturally lead).

"naturally lead" only in the minds of those who grossly misunderstand Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

"naturally lead" only in the minds of those who grossly misunderstand Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

A government suddenly finding their populace expendable has happened throughout history, under totalitarian government entities with absolute control.

You know.. the kind leftists seem to more and more advocate for.

 

[marvin martian]

A government suddenly finding their populace expendable has happened throughout history, under totalitarian government entities with absolute control.

You know.. the kind leftists seem to more and more advocate for.

Exactly. Few people remember when CNN founder Ted Turner advocated for murdering 5 billion people to "control the population". Few will admit to supporting Hillary Clinton's plan to murder 32 million Americans. But leftists have been committing genocide for centuries.

 

[Inquisitor]

Exactly. Few people remember when CNN founder Ted Turner advocated for murdering 5 billion people to "control the population". Few will admit to supporting Hillary Clinton's plan to murder 32 million Americans. But leftists have been committing genocide for centuries.

I agree, the left-wing arguments for eliminating pro-aborts are stronger than the "conservative ones".

As far as the left need be concerned, a woman has no rights - rights are imaginary, the only evolutionary right is might - so her and her body are property of the state - she exists only so long as she provides state utility, either through reproduction or through intellectual factors.

Given that abortion correlates with low intelligence and poverty, it would probably cleanse us of much of the surplus population, and eliminate unnecessary taxpayer spending to just eliminate them entirely.

Their "rights" can't be substantiated by scientific evidence, and exist every bit as much as fairy tales do - whatever serves the interest of the state, and the tribe goes - and women of low intelligence and ability to control their sexual impulses serve the purpose of the state and the tribe as much as feral animals waiting to be euthanized.

The same goes for defective males who perpetuate the abortion industry - they have no rights, and either castration or execution would be a fitting use for them and other evolutionary defectives, praying to their Flying Spaghetti Monster for imaginary "rights" - which in reality, only come out of the barrel of a gun or the hilt of a knife.

 

[BobbyT]

I agree, the left-wing arguments for eliminating pro-aborts are stronger than the "conservative ones".

As far as the left need be concerned, a woman has no rights - rights are imaginary, the only evolutionary right is might - so her and her body are property of the state - she exists only so long as she provides state utility, either through reproduction or through intellectual factors.

Given that abortion correlates with low intelligence and poverty, it would probably cleanse us of much of the surplus population, and eliminate unnecessary taxpayer spending to just eliminate them entirely.

Their "rights" can't be substantiated by scientific evidence, and exist every bit as much as fairy tales do - whatever serves the interest of the state, and the tribe goes - and women of low intelligence and ability to control their sexual impulses serve the purpose of the state and the tribe as much as feral animals waiting to be euthanized.

The same goes for defective males who perpetuate the abortion industry - they have no rights, and either castration or execution would be a fitting use for them and other evolutionary defectives, praying to their Flying Spaghetti Monster for imaginary "rights" - which in reality, only come out of the barrel of a gun or the hilt of a knife.

The ones with low intelligence are those who believe that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has anything to do with 'might.' For Darwin, fitness is not an expression of physical prowess.

 

[Inquisitor]

The ones with low intelligence are those who believe that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection has anything to do with 'might.' For Darwin, fitness is not an expression of physical prowess.

It's an expression of prowess, intellectual tending to be "better" on the whole than purely physical.

So given that abortion and unplanned pregnancy is associated with poverty and low intelligence, there would be many arguments to be made for simply eliminating those involved in it from the gene pool, in favor of men and women of higher intelligence and life ambitious beyond being a limp dick or a cum rag.

 

[BobbyT]

It's an expression of prowess, intellectual tending to be "better" on the whole than purely physical.

So given that abortion and unplanned pregnancy is associated with poverty and low intelligence, there would be many arguments to be made for simply eliminating those involved in it from the gene pool, in favor of men and women of higher intelligence and life ambitious beyond being a limp dick or a cum rag.

No it isn't. Fitness relates to reproductive success. Those who leave behind the most progeny who themselves successfully reproduce have the highest fitness.

 

[marvin martian]

No it isn't. Fitness relates to reproductive success. Those who leave behind the most progeny who themselves successfully reproduce have the highest fitness.

Which, in the natural kingdom, are usually the strongest, fastest, or smartest.

 

[BobbyT]

Which, in the natural kingdom, are usually the strongest, fastest, or smartest.

No, not necessarily. There are lots of strategies for reproductive success. Some rely on brute strength, some on parenting skill (it's not reproductive success until the next generation comes along), some on size, some on being wily, some on the male's penis shape, some on speed (which can be negatively correlated with size or strength), some on opportunity, some on locale, some on vocalization, some on displays, some on perseverance, some on cheating (e.g., weaker male bucks hanging around the periphery of another male's harem and sneaking in a quick poke while the other male is otherwise occupied). Variability within species is critical for species survival.

 

[Inquisitor]

No, not necessarily. There are lots of strategies for reproductive success. Some rely on brute strength, some on parenting skill (it's not reproductive success until the next generation comes along), some on size, some on being wily, some on the male's penis shape, some on speed (which can be negatively correlated with size or strength), some on opportunity, some on locale, some on vocalization, some on displays, some on perseverance, some on cheating (e.g., weaker male bucks hanging around the periphery of another male's harem and sneaking in a quick poke while the other male is otherwise occupied). Variability within species is critical for species survival.

I don't believe that evolution is solely about "physical" things, if it was then science would be worthless, and living like a 3rd world country where polygamy is a norm would be more "evolved", simply because it produces more offspring.

 

[BobbyT]

I don't believe that evolution is solely about "physical" things, if it was then science would be worthless, and living like a 3rd world country where polygamy is a norm would be more "evolved", simply because it produces more offspring.

I mentioned more strategies to improve reproductive success than just "physical" things. Nevertheless, within polygamous societies, polygamy is only effectively a reality for wealthy men, as men have only as many wives as they can afford and few have more than two. The vast majority of societies throughout human history have been polygamous, likely due to the high rate of childbirth related deaths and the fact that men can father children throughout their lives so men could take on a second wife later in life when the first wife was no longer bearing children - a good strategy for their reproductive success. If there is a 'gene' for polygamy, we already have it. Within our current mostly monogamous societies, men still use this strategy by having children outside of their marriage (i.e., the cheating strategy I mentioned above).

 

[marvin martian]

I mentioned more strategies to improve reproductive success than just "physical" things. Nevertheless, within polygamous societies, polygamy is only effectively a reality for wealthy men, as men have only as many wives as they can afford and few have more than two. The vast majority of societies throughout human history have been polygamous, likely due to the high rate of childbirth related deaths and the fact that men can father children throughout their lives so men could take on a second wife later in life when the first wife was no longer bearing children - a good strategy for their reproductive success. If there is a 'gene' for polygamy, we already have it. Within our current mostly monogamous societies, men still use this strategy by having children outside of their marriage (i.e., the cheating strategy I mentioned above).

Your party leadership is saying men can have babies, so you need to address that.

 

[BobbyT]

Your party leadership is saying men can have babies, so you need to address that.

Well that would certainly be one way for men to have more direct control of their own reproductive success.