The Poor, Malthusianism, Eugenics and Abortion

Alexander Blackstone

 

The abortionist movement has succeeded in presenting abortion as a solution for the problems of mothers who are poor. But the truth of the matter is far from that.

One of the roots of the deep socio-cultural problems that are facing the poor in this country are connected to the collapse of the two-parent family structure. Melissa S. Kearney has shown, first, that while in 1980 80% of the children of this country lived in two-parent families, in 2019 only 57% do. This is a dramatic decline. She has also shown that “children who grow up without two parents in their home are at a substantial disadvantage relative to kids who do.”[1] She bases this statement on very careful socio-economic statistical research. She does not investigate the causes of the collapse of the two-parent family structure, though. Towards the end of her book, in a careful way (covered with statistical and social science protection) she tells us that actually we should foster the “norm of two-parent homes for children,”[2]  and, citing another author, declares that the lack of role models of healthy marriage relationships can be called “social poverty.” After this, she suggests some ways in which politico-economical measures could help to palliate the problem, but she acknowledges that these measures could hardly achieve the needed level of success. Towards the end she declares: “if we do not reverse this trend—if millions of American children miss out on the benefits that come from a two-parent home and if the family gap continues to widen—then children will suffer, inequality will continue to widen, and social mobility will erode.”[3]

I will use a philosophical perspective to interpret the phenomena that Dr. Kearney has encountered. The crisis of the USA and of the world is a crisis of chastity. Without the cultivation of this virtue there is no way a healthy family structure could return to adequately provide for the loving and careful rising and educating of children. Chastity is the virtue that turns possible for human beings to authentically love their neighbors and God. We live in a world that hates this virtue and seems to have vowed to destroy it through pornography,[4] corruption of children and the youth and the systematic attack to the traditional Christian and natural standards of morality. One of the main agents in this attack is the abortionist movement, now associated with the gender ideology movement.

The presence of free abortion in this society (“free” in the sense of no economic cost and in the sense of no punishment for the perpetrators in the “health” care system) is one of the main factors that has destroyed the two-parent family structure, which is in decline since the so called “sexual revolution” started in the 60s. For example, while in 1960 only 22% of African American children were raised by a single parent, today, 66% are. The root of the problem is moral, although it has socio-cultural manifestations. This means that the ultimate understanding of the problem is philosophical. Social science starts with a given perspective and that perspective includes philosophical or ideological options. Only a radical reflection on those presuppositions could allow us to really understand the root.[5] From such philosophical perspective we could analyze two layers of the abortionist movement’s ideology.

The logic of the public rhetoric of the abortionists is a utilitarian or pragmatist logic. Persons are not seen as gifted with fundamental dignity and a right to life, but just as a number that contributes to the total sum of what utilitarians called “happiness,” that is to say, pleasure or the achievement of personal goals. Actions are not seen as intrinsically bearing evil or moral goodness, but just as vehicles carrying “consequences.” The most grievous actions are justified in the name of the general interest. H. L. A. Hart explained this crucial shortcoming of utilitarianism, the most extended ethical theory in the public conscience of the United States (see Between Utility and Rights).

It is time to return to a more judicious conception of morality, of the good in general and of the value of human beings and actions. Our classical and Christian tradition teaches that actions are good or bad according their inner structure, not to their consequences, which can never be adequately measured. Moreover, the good that we try to achieve in action is, above all, to care for and serve realities that have intrinsic value,[6] persons in the first place. The intention of providing this care and service, and the due effort to do it competently, changes our character and makes us good, rightly loving persons. This rectitude (which includes the selfless love of the highest intrinsic good, which is God) is the highest human good that we can achieve. The “general interest” of the utilitarians and pragmatists is a mirage and a false technical achievement that overlooks the real goal of the social order: to turn human beings as much as possible into virtuous, caring people, who acknowledge that the common good cannot be achieved by discarding the weak or those who demand from us a loving sacrifice.

In the relations between men and women that are directed to procreation such order is called “marriage” and “family.” Its foundation in the character of men and women is called “chastity” and “modesty.” The destruction of chastity and modesty has led to the destruction of the family and of marriage, and this destruction is the cause of the collapse of the socio-cultural order of the poor of this country. Abortion only provides the suppression of the children that are innocent of this collapse but challenge our ability to make sacrifices in order to care for all. For this reason, abortion is an anti-political solution. It does not look for the common good of all the persons who form the community. According to the official rhetoric of the abortionist movement, it just attempts to increase the total sum of “pleasure” of “fulfillment” or “happiness” by turning a part of the community against the most vulnerable and weak, and allowing especially the irresponsible fathers to keep and even increase a life of debauchery which further contributes to the collapse of the socio-cultural order.

Notice well that I said that the public rhetoric of the abortionist movement uses utilitarian arguments. Now I must turn my attention to the second layer of the movement, and add that the real ideas moving it are far more unhinged. Think about it, in light of the cui bono principle: The only real goal that abortion has achieved and is achieving is to keep at bay the population that is undesirable for those who founded the abortionist or the population control movement, which in some cases can be documented. It is well known that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wanted to keep at bay the African American population. Well, in 2014, 27.1% of their pregnancies ended in abortion in this country (until 2007 more than 40% ended in abortion.) 38% of the total number of abortions are suffered by African American women, despite the fact that African Americans are just 12% of the USA population. A similar tendency is appearing in the Hispanic population.

The goal of drastically reducing the world’s population is not a new one.  It appears in the writings of Dostoievski, who lived among the Russian revolutionaries and shared their ideas until he underwent a thorough conversion. He knows their ideas from within and he rejects them wholeheartedly. This dramatic contrast, his personal acquaintance with the inhumane ideology and his exceptional talents is what turns his novels into such a fascinating literature and into such a deep philosophical reflection. In Demons, one of the characters states that, in order to establish the scientific society, what is needed is to annihilate nothing less that 9/10s of the world population:

“For my part,” said Lyamshin, “if I didn’t know what to do with nine-tenths of mankind, I’d take them and blow them up into the air instead of putting them in paradise. I’d only leave a handful of educated people, who would live happily ever afterwards on scientific principles.”

In my opinion, a similar ideology is the engine that is leading the war against population, although the intentions are masked with a false rhetoric.

Caring for the poor is not compatible with Malthusianism or neo-Malthusianism, which really hates the poor but covers its hatred with the cloak of “social” or “ecological” concerns. Only those who acknowledge the worth of each person and, therefore, the universal right to life can begin to care for the poor.

 

 

---

[1] See The Two-Parent Privilege (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2023), pp. 8-9.

[2] Ibidem, pp. 171 ff.

[3] Ibidem, pp. 183-184.

[4] Dr. Kearney mentions the influence of TV in relaxing the traditional two-parent norm, for example in Brazil. See ibidem, p. 173.

[5] On the relationship between social science and the philosophical perspective, see Eric Voegelin, The New Science of Politics (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952), introduction.

[6] See Nicomachean Ethics book 10, .