Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

Catchy labels, but inaccurate for fascists.

Most oftentimes that the topic of abortion is brought up, people are divided into two broad camps. The pro-life camp generally advocates for restrictions on abortion. The pro-choice camp predictably supports a woman's choice to have an abortion. As with many other things in our modern democracy it really comes down to a matter of votes and numerical supremacy. Due to this fact both sides are driven away from a nuanced middle ground stance and toward their opposing bases. This succeeds in inflaming opposites and creates a volatile atmosphere in which self-destructive conflict ( for the general population ) is inevitable. What's more, the two camps become increasingly marginalized and fail to adequately serve the middle class which is the heart of the nation.

The attacks and criticisms on each side similarly become points of camp personality, and thus are predictable and ultimately self-serving. A person that is pro-life generally makes attacks in a tribal fashion against pro-choice individuals. These attacks won't serve the middle class as much as they will gratify one's personal convictions or demonize one's enemy. The same is true in reverse by pro-choicers. I'm not going to bother exploring the full nature of militants or extremists on either side because I find them too incendiary. Fascists typically support the beneficial aspects of competition or conflict, but it's always important to avoid being suicidal in the pursuit.

What kinds of arguments, and how is the modern fascist different?

The most common arguments against the pro-life stance seem to be that they are religiously driven, the definition of when human life begins, and contradictions in belief or actions. I'll break a few of these down in the general sense and let you fill in the rest yourself. We're looking at basic framework here.

Religiously Driven
Generally speaking the most vocal people or organizations that rally against abortion are based in religion. This is common both due to geopolitical factors like the prevalence of Christianity in the West and the tendency of mainstream religions to appeal to moral life choices regarding the preservation of life. Fascists tend to regard religion warily where it makes broad statements about what should be done, because it can oppose the interests of the state. For that reason the modern fascist is much more likely to look to secular answers. For the common person who is agnostic, atheist, or not deeply committed to organized religion they can see a reason to abandon the cause for fear of being counted as a member of that religion.

Where Human Life Begins
People who oppose the pro life movement tend to claim that human life doesn't really count until late in the pregnancy. Pro-lifers disagree with their own variety of dates and guidelines as to what counts as a human life. In order to find the real answer it's better to take a step back and look at the whole picture with our scientific understanding. There is a strong state interest in preserving the lives of would-be citizens even at the expense or inconvenience of a mother. Human fetuses aren't inhuman, they are an early stage part of the human life cycle. The notion that a human being is only a human once it exits the womb is antiquated and relies mainly on discredited superstitions.

Contradictory Behaviors
A commonly used observation against the pro-life camp is an inconsistency around the idea of supporting life. One example is someone who is supposedly "pro-life" but also supports the death penalty. Another example is a person who is "pro-life" but doesn't support social programs that add value to life. Here the main problem is labels, and a widespread assumption that every person opposed to widespread abortion is some kind of religious zealot. "Pro-Life" is a label, and as I've pointed out inadequately serves the average person. To use myself as an example, and fascists in general, I'm typically an opponent of abortion but a proponent of the death penalty. This is a nuanced approach toward measuring the value of human life.


The other side, the Pro-Choicers, essentially face inversions of the above arguments by their polar opposite. An assertion that Pro-Choicers lack morality, that human life is spiritually sacred, and that abortion is ultimately selfish are a few common arguments.

Pro-Choice is Morally Bankrupt
This argument tends to come from the religious base of the Pro-Life camp. It comes either in the form of self-gratifying statements of superiority, or accusations. A Christian might claim that their religion makes them a moral authority, or someone might simply say that abortion constitutes murder. The morality of abortion is important to fascists but not the deciding factor. Fascists are preoccupied with pragmatic approaches to moral issues like abortion. If you lack an adequate population to serve the state's needs, then abortion is largely counterproductive. If you live in an overpopulated area and need to enact policies such as the One Child Policy to benefit the whole, then that type of approach should be pursued.

Human Life is Spiritually Sacred
A concept relied on by the Pro-Life camp is that human life is ultimately sacred. This can be used to state that human life begins at conception, or to say that all abortions are inherently immoral regardless of circumstances. It serves to disarm the practical reasons that one might pursue an abortion, such as in instances of rape or incest, and by lacking nuance punishes the average person. Spirituality is very complex and lacks scientific basis, so assertions of the overall value of all human life is completely arbitrary.

Abortion is Selfish
Pro-Choice supporters broadly speaking defend women's rights, individuality, and choice. Detractors choose to paint this in the light of selfishness. Rights and freedoms, personal responsibility, and free will speak to a variety of other extended topics. Is it ultimately selfish though? Each case is completely different, so saying the decision is inherently selfish is bound to be wrong a certain number of times. As a modern fascist I prefer to reconcile the matter by dialing back the clock to look at the initial choice. I am a pro-choice individual, in that I respect and hold a woman accountable for her choice to have consensual sex aware of the risks and repercussions.


Well that was a bit of reading, so what's the right answer?

I'm not going to give you the world-spanning definitive answer on the subject of abortion, which is quite complex and faceted. What I will do is make a general guideline that I feel is appropriate. As one of few open neo-fascists I feel comfortable dictating this as what should be followed as the baseline for neo-fascism moving forward. This guideline assumes that sexual activity has occurred between two consenting adults and makes specific notes as necessary.

-Permitted in cases of non-consensual sexual activity ( including statutory rape/coercion )
-Permitted in cases of incest
-Permitted in cases of high risk to the mother's life
-Permitted in cases of extreme development issues that would be reasonably assumed to permanently impoverish the parents or encumber the state
-Permitted in cases of  extreme drought, famine, etc.

Furthermore, in addition to outlining the appropriate uses of abortion and restrictions on it, the government has responsibilities. If these responsibilities aren't being fulfilled a citizen can reasonably assume that the state has failed to uphold its role, and the restrictions are thus void.

-The state must provide robust prenatal and medical care
-The state must provide adequate education for the child
-The state must provide reasonable economic opportunity for the mother
-The state must provide alternative parenting options ( e.g state orphanage )


Women, just as men, need to be held accountable for their actions and choices. Many of the issues faced by couples can be minimized by restoring the prominence of the nuclear family. Sexism exists on both sides of the debate on reproductive rights, and the actions between two consenting adults should include both of them. Any system that places the power and decision making solely in the hands of one party disrupts the other. By elevating the state and its sanctions above the individual, pairs are able to work together to a mutually beneficial outcome. Every state-endorsed pregnancy should be recognized as the result of a choice between two consenting individuals.

We can ensure the choice to have sex, even to plan pregnancy. We can also ensure that prospective citizens aren't prematurely destroyed. We can ensure that the decision to have a child isn't the end of a person's ambitions. We can ensure that middle class families have the opportunity to grow our nation. We can ensure that a life of state parenthood is competitive and healthy.