~ archived since 2018 ~


May 28, 2019

I had my LTRs mother ask me what I thought about Alabama's new laws the other day, and after agreeing with it, obviously went into a very long argument (I know, never get into this shit with women, but she's chill). She did the obvious nay-saying and "it's my choice". The next night, we had her bf over for dinner, and he asks the same thing. Both me and LTR mother laugh about the argument we had just had the night before over it. He then begins to nay-say my thoughts again, blue pilled as he is. I was just wondering if you guys could see any holes in my argument:

A pregnant woman will see one of two options; if she doesn't want the baby because she wants to continue to fuck Chads: "It's MY baby, therefore, MY choice." If she wants to try to lock Chad down and steal his money for the next 20 years: "It's YOUR baby, and YOU need to STEP UP, MAN UP, AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.".

We can see the logical fallacy right off the start; cognitive dissonance. "Rules for thee, but not for me". Schrodinger's baby until SHE makes a decision.

We can also take both those arguments further into what they are REALLY saying: "I am a child who cannot be trusted to make good decisions, and in neither of the above cases should I be held responsible for my own actions."

To which the obvious next question is, "Then how the fuck can you be trusted to make either one of those decisions yourself to begin with?" In both cases the woman is ADMITTING that she makes poor decisions but should not be held responsible, in which case, why do we have children in our government? Why are we allowing children who can't be trusted to make good decisions to vote? Make high level business decisions?

To my mind, their OWN ARGUMENT places them back in the kitchen, right back where they started.

Now, my LTRs mother is smart and hard working but not HIGHLY intelligent, which I noticed by her lack of ability to address any of my arguments directly, and just swiftly ignored them and basically said "but meh equalisms". I was just wondering from you guys, if there IS an argument against this train of thought that you can see?

Now I personally know that the above statements are 100% true, that they are in fact very much children, but the way I was framing it (because I'm not going to flat out say that to my LTR OR her mother XD), was to show that this is THEIR argument, and that my own personal beliefs are that I should be able to see a woman as a smart, strong, capable and responsible adult, not a child.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/askTRP.

/r/askTRP archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Abortion
Author LunarTears0
Upvotes 2
Comments 20
Date May 28, 2019 11:25 AM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit /r/askTRP
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/askTRP/abortion.239920
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/btyv8k/abortion/

[–]Protocol_Apollo4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The pro life argument makes the most sense (just watch Steven crowder/Ben Shapiro on their takes)

But ultimately, it comes to this:

Think for yourself but act like others

There’s very little to gain from debating people esp with something like this. Their views have become so engrained in them, their strong emotions about it cloud them so much that you would have to go to hell and back to change their opinions, so why bother?

[–]Yashugan002 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You are using the wrong paradigm to crack this nut.

Women don't give a shit about being logically consistent.

All that matters is how it makes them feel right now. That's going to be their opinion.

The vast majority have no fixed moral compass or internally consistent framework of ethics.

Arguing with a women is a waste of time.

if you want to understand WHY she uses one argument over another, simply think about why this would benefit her.

By extention, from the specific individual to the generic: Briffault's Law, and by extention the continuous fight to liberate/constrain hypergamy is the underpinning of all our cultures as a species. Men use tools, women use men.

[–]LunarTears0 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I completely get the entirety of what you're saying, I was mostly after seeing if there was a way a rational person (ie. a man) could eat holes in my arguments to make abortion ok, not so much women, as I KNOW they will never concede to give ground.

Can a blue pilled man tear my argument apart rationally? Or can he only echo what the women around him are saying, as was the case with LTRs mother's BF.

"By extention, from the specific individual to the generic: Briffault's Law, and by extention the continuous fight to liberate/constrain hypergamy is the underpinning of all our cultures as a species. Men use tools, women use men. "

I like that \^. Thanks for the input.

[–]Yashugan001 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Sure, any person can eat holes in arguments, it's easier to break than to build. That is why "whatabout-ism" arguments are so effective, they drag you from one argument to the next, and you end up having to run after to defend each position for really very limited expenditure of energy on their part. Every time you're making headway in one case, they'll just throw the next emotional outrage at you.

There is no silver bullet argument for or against abortion because the 2 predominent camps/ideologies have wildly different definitions of terms. (part of the problem of endlessly re-defining the meaning of words) This is why the debates keep circling around: you're talking a different language and no common ground can be found. what is reasonable to one person is wholly un-acceptable to another simply because the meaning of words varies so wildly.

What is 'life' (from when?) , what is 'unwanted' (by whom), why is it a 'right' (according to what moral authority?), who should 'pay' for it (big state/small state, capitalism/socialism, etc).

Then there are the supposed border cases that are impractical/impossible judgement calls such as "what if the women was raped" (truth/lie) , what about, what about what about. It's impossible to police or govern. which means it's impossible to have sensible enforcable laws. Which means, in the end, what they are asking for is: "whatever the women says goes".

I believe these so called debates burn so hotly is because that is what this ultimately boils down to: Men are trying to make sense out of the arguments so it can be internally consistent with the laws and societies being built up; whereas women are putting their foot down and saying: no, i feel it should be this way, so we should do it this way.

To further the previous thought:

I'm of the opinion that "Culture" (eg social norms and the routines/rituals around them) is the compromises we make to rationalise the degree of hypergamy a community is willing to accept.

[–]LunarTears0 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

Very eye-opening response, thank you.

Although, didn't Peter Jordanson completely destroy that "what about...." and "so what you're saying is..." bitch? Surely these arguments can be shaken off if you can force the debater back to the original point and have people listening see that a trick is being used to deflect a point rather than debate it.

Though the original point still stands that women will refuse reason no matter what points are made, and there will always be a blue pilled cuck behind her, echoing her in the hopes of getting laid.

I suppose the argument really does go out the window no matter who you are talking to.

[–]Yashugan000 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

> Surely these arguments can be shaken off if you can force the debater back to the original point

yes, with a BUT:

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain


Bill Burr: how women argue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNSt3wJXZk0

(I've personally experienced this a few times and each time you go "wtf just happened, where is this coming from". Trust a comedian to tell the truth, everyone else would get hanged)

Sure yes, bear in mind though that Jordan Peterson, as a psychologist and professional thinker and debater has superlative skills in this area. To give an illustration of his skills: the media ("so what you're saying" straw-man) interviews works so often and the debate can be weaponised against most guest speakers. After all, the interviewer controls the framing, the editing, the topics of conversation, the pacing, the camera angles. You are seeing a debate between 2 people, but actually it's a guest, an interviewer and a whole team in her earpiece with the benefit of planning and the internet at their fingertips.

You seem very interested in debating these people. Fine, perhaps you should do some introspection first and consider what your goals are and why. Are you trying to 'win' the conversation by proving yourself right and for them to admit they are wrong. I hate to tell you, rarely do you get to convince another person of something that they consider a part of their identity. Look up 'cults' and cult like behaviour. They are so entrenched in their position, that it becomes a part of their ego (identity). The ego will fight to defend itself from death. the most common reaction in this case is anger. (hence why you see so many of them getting angry when you try to debate them in rational discourse)

[–]GGrub86 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm not pro-life and I couldn't care less about the ethical reasons, but there is a very important thing to consider: a woman who aborts has gone against her own maternal instincts and it's a huge indicator of her being unfit as a future mother.

On the other hand, I'm strongly against giving birth to a child who is not wanted by both parents, and a woman who willingly deprives her kid of his/her own natural father, the most important resource in order to ensure he/she grows strong (and not a slut if it's a girl or a beta/incel if it's a boy), has also shown to be a terrible mother. If the father is an asshole then she was an idiot for having sex with him so she's still responsible.

An undesired pregnancy is a lose/lose scenario, which is why birth control is extremely important. Only, you can't trust her because she could "forget" the pill, so you must use condoms.

In fact, in the age of birth control and enforced consent a pregnant woman is 100% responsible of her pregnancy, even though the laws and society in general are trying their damndest to shift the burden on men while women get all the benefits. We're forced to rely on condoms out of pragmatism, not because it's morally our responsibility, it's actually theirs. They choose to be pregnant.

So what do you do if you get a girl pregnant against your will to be a father? Right now the only remotely passable option is to use the Hail Mary method to convince her to abort, then ghost her.

But seriously, use condoms. There is nothing more soul-crushing than knowing your kid is destined to be a meal ticket for some random slut who'll brainwash him/her to make them hate you while you pay for child support.

[–]LunarTears0 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

I absolutely agree. I'm pro choice when it comes to rape and incest, and even if BOTH parties agree that they are not ready, as long as they make that decision within a timely (6 week) manner.

And to add to the condom advice, FLUSH THEM WHEN YOU'RE DONE. I have a child because my ex "forgot her pill" and "accidentally took my condom out of the trash and took it into the bathroom after I passed out".

[–]Project_Zero_Betas0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

and "accidentally took my condom out of the trash and took it into the bathroom after I passed out".

Nice troll LMFAO

[–]thesatellite231 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

TRP is all about individualism, right? As an budding alpha male, therefore, you shouldn't care what any other person does. If a complete stranger has an abortion, that doesn't affect you at all. Furthermore, you should take necessary precautions to prevent situations happening in your personal life. If you don't even want the possibility of becoming a father, then don't impregnate your partner. Conversely, if you DO want to become a father, then impregnate a woman who sincerely wants to become a mother as well. You can only control your actions.

I stopped debating political issues -- with anybody -- long ago. Instead, I am more focused on advocating for policies and making a real impact in government. You can do that as well; you can simply email your representatives to let them know how you feel about their legislation one way or the other.

[–]Project_Zero_Betas0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

TRP is all about individualism, right? As an budding alpha male, therefore, you shouldn't care what any other person does. If a complete stranger has an abortion, that doesn't affect you at all.

The correct answer.

[–]Irtotallynotrobot1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

First, I agree with you. Criticism welcome.

Second, this argument is flawed. It's assuming that, because a bad decision was made in the past, that a good decision cannot be made in the future. This overlooks an essential part of the female strategy, which is very strong.

A woman is actually making very rational choices for herself here, which argues against the point that her decision making is poor. The truth is that shirking responsibility and hoarding choice power is intelligent.

In the case of not keeping the baby, she found a guy who she believes will supply some resources she wants but not enough to justify keeping any eventual child; not worth the risk of losing value in another chad's eyes because she now has little timmy in tow. She's taking a calculated risk in sleeping with this guy and gambling that a child won't result but has the "it's my body, my choice" nuke in case that comes about.

In the case of keeping the baby, she found who she believes will supply all the resources she wants (regardless of whether he actually can or just has serious alpha game). Now she does everything she can to capitalize and take the risk of lowering her value in other chad's eyes with little timmy in tow because this is an opportunity she can't pass up. Again, a calculated risk; this is where "step up and be a man" comes in.

Another flaw is that this argument assumes that the "it's my body, my choice" and "step up and be a man" are mutually exclusive, cannot coexist. With just these claims alone, she can still have the choice and the man can still bare half responsibility.

If someone wanted to weaken your argument, they would attack one of those two assumptions. Shit like, "just because you two mistakenly decided to sleep together doesn't mean she's incapable of making the right choice as a mother now". "It's her choice what she does with her body but you knew the risks when you had sex with her so you are responsible too, you already made your choice."

To strengthen your argument, I would emphasize that a woman is not making a decision based on a sovereign or personal moral code (you hinted at this) because her decisions demonstrate fluid self-interest which may conflict with the best interest of a child (something like that which connects her non-motherly decision making in the two tenses). The second one is pretty straightforward, it's not fair to a man that he is only judged on his actions prior when a woman can make a retrospective decision at her discretion; both parents should share the choice/responsibility equally. If a woman gets 100% of the choice she should have 100% of the responsibility (they hate that).

Conclusion = Women cannot be trusted with the decision of keeping a child because the arguments they make in support of aborting/not aborting imply that they made a bad decision prior to conceiving.


  1. Women make an abortion decision based on the environment around them ( if chad then keep; if not chad then not keep) for sake of simplicity.
  2. Women do not make a decision based on sovereign ethics because they make a decision that suits them best at the moment.
  3. Women cannot be trusted to make good decisions because they expect not to be held responsible for their own actions based on the diametrically opposed arguments they use to support their decision.

[–]W_O_M_B_A_T1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Who gives a shit, babies die every second of every day. Used to be you didn't have to worry that much about abortion because there was a 50:50 chance any given baby would die of measles, smallpox, whooping cough, typhus, dysentery, or you name it anyway.

If you're so upset about abortion, do your goddamn part and get a vasectomy. Problem solved. Then it'll never be an issue that is actually relevant to your life.

[–]FreedomEpiphany0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

I believe abortions should be legal for women, and she should be the person to decide to keep a child, however the father can choose not to participate in growing up the kid.

This idea of going with the crowd promotes brainwashing and hinders dialogue and communication. You may be not liked, but you will be free and authentic.

[–]LunarTears0 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

You don't believe that you should have a say in your own child's fate?

I only feel this because, as a teenager, I accidentally got a chick pregnant, and she immediately ran off to the abortion clinic, without my knowledge or consent, and aborted my child, to avoid a tongue lashing from her mother.

I was 100% not ready for a child, and neither was she, but it still pained me to know that my first child was killed, without a word to me about it, or even the need for it. It pains me to know that there are a lot of children, who, if their fathers were allowed to have a voice, would live and be very much loved by their fathers.

[–]FreedomEpiphany0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

There is a social stigma of being pregnant without being in an official relationship/ltr. No one should have kids before 18. I think it was a good call from her side. I'm not saying single mom kids don't grow up to be great, but teens should not have kids.

[–]LunarTears0 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

I agree, it WAS a good call. It would have ruined both of our lives, but it doesn't take away the fact that I had no say. What if we were in our 20's? 30's? Should she still be able to kill your child, even if you want the child?

The arguments a woman will put forth will either be, it's my baby, or, it's your baby. But a baby needs an egg AND a sperm, therefore, if it was consensual, it is OUR baby. Shouldn't you have a say in what happens to something that is half yours?

[–]FreedomEpiphany1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If it happens after 18, the father should get to keep the kid if the woman is unwilling to do so, unless the conception happened under duress or under some illness or the kid may have issues. There should be no legal intervention by the law, however the woman has to inform the father about the child.

[–]GGrub80 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

This doesn't happen in practice for two reasons:

  1. Society portrays single mothers as heroines, while mothers who give their child away are heavily stigmatized, even if it was the best choice.

  2. A woman holding your child has tremendous power over you, as well as many benefits from the government. Women, despite being driven by emotion most of the time, are perfectly capable of chillingly rational thought if the situation calls for it. Why would they give up this powerful leverage to you? Why not exploit the father for child support? Why not take advantage of the fact they can proudly prove they fulfilled their biological mission to get validation from everyone?

[–]FreedomEpiphany0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a very valid point, however that just shows that you need to practice safe procreation. Incase you are stuck in a situation where you are being blackmailed you can choose to have custody of the kid once you show evidence of the said blackmailing.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2022. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter