The Order of Canada to an
August 15, 2008
August 15, 2008
Morgentaler has been named to the Order of Canada for his efforts in
promoting and legalizing abortion.
The event provoked controversy. Not a surprise. But it got me thinking
about it more seriously in two respects. First, how do I feel about it? And,
second, what are the implications for our people?
My gut reaction is negative. I don’t like the whole idea of it
being done to any woman, especially those I love. My god, what would it mean if
my daughter became pregnant and considered an abortion? It would mean that
something had gone very badly, no?
Of course if the fetus were obviously defective, e.g., with a
genetic disease like Downs syndrome, there would seem to be no rational
(as opposed to religious, aesthetic or emotional) argument against aborting such
a fetus. Abortion in all such cases (6% of all
abortions) is surely eugenic and is performed for precisely that reason
even if the term “eugenic” is rarely used. Even if the “defective” individual
were sterile, the parental and societal investment would, from a strictly
biological and economic standpoint, constitute a waste of resources. True, even
if the politically correct don’t want to think about it.
It’s the same in cases of rape (less than 1% of abortions). Abortion is rational, over and above the psychological trauma of rape (hatred, fear, alienation, sadness), since the pregnancy would not have been the result of the woman’s choice of mate. Women’s choice prevents parasitism by violence-prone males who will not invest in the child’s future. It can be thought of as a minimal selection mechanism for good genes — as well as an element (among many) for promoting a healthy psychological environment for a child.
But what if there is no evidence of defect in the fetus nor of
rape (absence of female choice) (93% of all
abortions)? Here it depends on whether you’ve bought an
“individualistic” view of humanity or one which assumes an inherent and
inevitable interconnectedness and interdependence of people within a society
(especially family, extended family and ethny/nation).1
According to the former view, a woman should be able to do anything she wants
with herself and her unborn child since no one else is presumed to be directly
affected. However, the interdependence position assumes that no one is an island
and that we all have some responsibilities toward others in our family and our
While people obviously will disagree on the nature and degree of
such responsibilities, other members of a woman’s family and extended family do
have a legitimate interest in her reproduction. Parents of a woman will
typically place great hope in their daughter having children. Ideally, they want
their daughter to have a successful marriage (meaning first choosing and then
getting a man with good genes, character and capacity to be a good, supportive
father to her children). But if things are not ideal (e.g., marriage is not a
possibility), the parents may still want the daughter to give birth and at the
very least give it up for adoption if they are unable to care for the baby
themselves. The strong demand for healthy white babies as adoptees is well
Such concerns are not a matter of a (negotiated) “social
contract” between the woman and her parents any more than there was a “social
contract” governing the parental care of that same woman when she was a child:
Her parents simply feel instinctively that they don’t want to lose a grandchild,
and obviously there are good evolutionary grounds for such feelings. One could
even speculate that such instinctive feelings are the basis for “moral”
judgments in such matters which for many are manifested as religious
Suppose there has been no rape or incest and no obvious defect
in the fetus. Could abortion in such cases ever be considered biologically
adaptive, meaning promoting the long-term genetic interests of the mother and
her family members, their survival and continued reproduction? Well, yes.
(Historically, so has infanticide,
e.g., when a family’s survival was at stake). All sorts of variables, both
genetic and environmental, can have an “adaptive” influence: the quality of the
father, the economic circumstances and current health of the mother as compared
to what she could anticipate later on, were she to postpone having a child. But
having an abortion because of “unfortunate circumstances” has to be weighed
against the health hazards of abortion, including risk to future fertility, and
against the psychological
damage abortion can cause in many if not all women. Incidentally,
what sort of women find themselves in such a pickle? If memory serves, in the
old days having had an abortion was not a “good sign” of a quality candidate for
marriage, although there were sometimes extenuating circumstances. Perhaps
today, given the environment that girls are brought up in, it may not signify
all that much.
A striking element in this whole business is that many of the
most talented people — across all races — are not replacing themselves and
abortion would seem to have played at least some role in this trend. E.g., more
than half of abortions are for women with family
incomes over $30,000, and about twenty
percent are for married
women. Such patterns are surely dysgenic for an ethny. Reducing the planet’s
human population is all well and good, but the place to begin is with those
members of an ethny who are least able to provide for a family — as was once the
case in N.
Europe in the centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution. That
revolution may in fact have been facilitated by the preceding differences in
Interestingly, Afro-Americans and Hispanics have by far the highest abortion rates in the USA. It has been claimed that such abortions have lowered the crime rate thanks to potential criminals being aborted. If true, that would be eugenic for those groups (and good for the rest of the world), but the hypothesis remains controversial.
Now then, what about Dr. Morgentaler? He was honored for
promoting abortion not for cases of defective fetuses or rape and incest (since
such abortions were already available in hospitals) but essentially for healthy
women and their fetuses when the women simply didn’t want a child at that
It is sometimes said that such abortions are encouraged by
Jewish doctors (e.g., Morgentaler) primarily for non-Jewish women as one of
several strategies for reducing the dominance of non-Jewish ethnies. Given the
influence of Jews in promoting
non-white immigration and the anti-white
(and anti-Arab) themes of so many Jewish controlled Hollywood films,
this is not an unreasonable hypothesis.
views on abortion are quite varied. Orthodox or highly religious Jews
have almost none at all, obeying the Talmudic dictum to “be fruitful and
multiply”; they might well get an abortion if the mother’s life were at stake,
but even when the fetus is defective quite often they refuse an abortion.
Indeed, Orthodox Jews have eagerly embraced
reproductive technology, and Israel has strong pro-natalist policies
aimed at producing Jewish babies.
Jewish researchers have
been largely responsible for screening for Tay Sachs, a genetic disease common
among Ashkenazi Jews, and drastically reducing its incidence in part through
abortion (but there are other strategies that avoid abortion). Since Jews make up only a small
percentage of the population of N. America, the sample sizes in statistical
studies may be too small for very refined analysis of Jewish abortion rates, but
their reported portion of abortions overall (1-2%) seems to be proportional to
and not far removed from their reported portion of the general population
(2-3%). But that still would mean that in absolute numbers, gentiles are having
a vastly higher number of abortions.
It is also said that most abortionists are Jewish and that that
is evidence of an ethnic conflict factor. This is possible. The case of Felix
Theilhaber, a racial
Zionist working in Germany in the early twentieth century, certainly
suggests ethnic conflict. Like all racial Zionists, Thielhaber wanted
to end Jewish intermarriage, increase Jewish fertility, and preserve Jewish
racial purity. Theilhaber was very concerned about the declining Jewish birth
rate and was politically active in attempting to increase Jewish fertility
(going so far as to propose to tax “child-poor” families to support “child-rich”
families). At the same time, he was also instrumental in creation of the
Gesellschaft für Sexualreform, whose aims were to legalize abortion and make
contraceptives available to the German public.
It would be worthwhile documenting the ethny (not just religion)
of both abortion providers and recipients (and not just the present racial
categories of black, Hispanic and white). If it turns out that abortion on
demand really is almost entirely provided by Jewish doctors for gentile women,
then that aspect should be highly publicized in the context of a general
discussion of how our people can make healthier life choices within a healthier
life style. Those who are responsible for interfering in this quest should be
My conclusion concerning Dr.
It seems quite possible that the promotion of abortions as a
routine method of birth control has contributed to the devaluation in Western
cultures of the sentiment of “sacredness” surrounding pregnancy and birth of a
child. For that reason I’m dismayed by the celebration of Dr. Morgentaler’s
“achievements” with an Order of Canada. To the contrary, aborting healthy babies
ought to be re-stigmatized. Of course girls would have to be raised to
appreciate the nature of abortion rather than left to their own devices in this
world of pro-abortion propaganda. That should be part of a major “consciousness
raising” for our women — and men — in a campaign to encourage the healthiest and
most talented (and not only the best educated) to have plenty of children, while
encouraging those who are not healthy or who are unable to be productive
citizens to exercise responsible restraint when it comes to reproducing and
thereby avoid saddling the rest of society with the cost of their children’s
upbringing. (How to put into practice such a policy requires another essay.)
Condemning abortion is only part of the matter, however. Other
birth control methods seem likely to have been much more important in promoting
non-reproductive sex both inside and outside of marriage. Fortunately, the
abortion rate is gradually declining in the West (down 13% over 9 years in Canada).
Unfortunately, the population of Western ethnies, relative to the rest of the
world, is also decreasing.
Note also that the success of a country like Iran in reducing its birth rate and avoiding catastrophic overpopulation has depended much more on methods other than abortion — which is available there only for extreme cases (including defective fetuses or threat to the physical or psychological health of the mother) and not as a routine birth control method. I would favor such a policy for my own family and people, but with the added stipulation of encouraging reproduction in those responsible enough to raise a healthy, smart and honorable next generation — within their ethny.
Anthony Hilton is Assoc. Prof. (retired) in the Psychology Department, Concordia University, Montreal. He thanks the editor for valuable suggestions.
 See Alain de Benoist: Critique of Liberal Ideology, The Occidental Quarterly, Winter 2007-2008, vol. 7, No. 4, 9-30.