The article in YP and twitter discussion on abortion led to a massive twitter outrage among the “Hindu” liberals and secular liberals alike, who want to justify murder in the name of choice for women. Somehow these people don’t seem to get that every action has its consequences and if someone eats salt, he/she has to drink water. The most common retort or justification from the liberals, who want to justify murder of babies, is that babies will not be taken care of if they are allowed to be born in an unplanned way. But what they seem to miss is that this was precisely why the ancient cultures put a heavy price on such pregnancies in the form of marriage, often at gun point. People were not supposed to be having unprotected sex resulting in pregnancies in the first place. Justifying murder of few week old foetuses in the name of “unplanned”, “economic”, “muh choice” etc is no different than justifying murder of infants for the same reason. After all an infant, which is less than one year old is as dependant on the mother and society as the foetus is on the mother which some disgusting subhuman animals masquerading as liberals like to call it- “a parasite”. But nobody justifies killing infants who cannot be taken care of by their parents. The same people, ‘which’ justify abortion under the pretext of not being able to take care of their foetus would still think it is murder to kill infants under the pretext of not being able to take care of them, unless they are complete psychopaths.
There is nothing Hindu about “Muh Choice” abortion:
Some pro-abortionists, who call themselves as Hindu “feminists”, claim that Hinduism is liberal and that anything can be done and still be consistent with Hindu morality. However, this notion that Hinduism is liberal and allows whatever one wants to do is a bastardisation of Hindu philosophy and theology. Hinduism allows “exploration” of various philosophies and questioning of various ideas. That is not the same as the bastardised version of the Hindu philosophy advocated by the animals masquerading as liberals as “anything goes”. That is one can choose the path of Sankaracharya for attaining moksha or path of Ramanujan and so on but one cannot go around killing people, who they perceive as being useless for society and claim that such psychotic killing is also the way of Hinduism and is a path for moksha. As one could see in the above example, there is a huge difference between “there are multiple paths to ultimate truth” as against “anything can be done and still be moral” philosophy.
Unlike what the “muh choice” feminists/Hindu liberals like to portray, there is no philosophy in Hinduism which justifies abortion. In fact, all the philosophies of Hinduism say the same thing about abortion (sisu hatya) i.e. it is an unforgivable sin. Hindu Shastras forbid abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger, since in this case not killing the foetus will kill the mother. Hindu Shastras make it pretty clear that sisu hatya is equivalent to 50 murders, since the life being killed/murdered here is as innocent a life can be. The curse for Ashvathama in Mahabharata should be enough of a lesson for anyone on this issue. This is where it is important to call out the self-identified “Hindu” feminists and liberals on their nonsense. There is nothing Hindu whatsover about either them or their philosophy. They just want to justify murder in the name of a bastardised version of Hinduism and philosophy.
Abortion in the name of rape:
The second biggest argument from the side of psychopaths who support murder in the name of economics is that rape victims should be allowed to have abortions. But rape as the reason for abortion accounts for less than 0.1% of the total abortions carried out today. As such an exception can be made on humanitarian grounds for such conditions. However, this is not a valid argument to give to justify abortion for the other 99%. This argument is no different than saying that killing someone in self defence is valid (abortion w.r.t. rape) and so killing anybody for any reason (abortion under the pretext of “muh choice”) which is murder is also valid.
Abortion and Premarital Sex:
Amongst all this, the most disgusting and disturbing observation in the debate was that most of the anti-abortion rhetoric came from men and many women, even those claiming to be pro-Hindu Dharma, supported abortion. The reason for that can range from the deep desire among today’s westernised, mentally colonised modern Hindu women to have premarital sex to them having fully bought into the idea that abortion is about women’s rights. The former is indicative of how much the society has decayed today. All of them have been corrupted by brothelwood and hollywood into thinking that premarital sex is somehow good for women and is about women’s rights. This is of course patently false. When premarital sex is restricted by the society, either by law or by social convention, it doesn’t restrict the sex activities of the women alone, but it restricts men too. For example, when government bans the manufacture of tobacco, is it restricting the right of only tobacco manufacturers? Of course not. It impedes the use of tobacco by the tobacco users as well indirectly. The same is true with premarital sex restrictions.
Premarital sex restrictions were imposed on women mostly because women bore the brunt of the responsibility if things go wrong. They were the ones who got pregnant. A man could impregnate a woman and take off to nowhere but the woman had to bear the child. So societies were far more protective of the girl child than of the boy child. This has nothing to do with misogyny or women’s rights, but rather the practical reality and biology. And restricting girls from having premarital sex also effectively restricts boys from having premarital sex, since the penalty for such activities in pre-westernised India or any other traditionalist culture for that matter was marriage, often at gun point or social outcasting.
Also, the very notion of premarital sex is incoherent. The act of sex is associated in all archaic ethos with the act of procreation. Sex outside of marriage is purely for pleasure and is akin to mutual masturbation. Sex within the marriage is a sacred act, and one who participates in this act with his beloved, their bind sanctified by the fire of ritual is one without fault. Thus society restricted both men and women from participating in sexual union outside of marriage because of this very fact. Since it is harmful more to women as discussed above, it is imperative for the young Hindu men to take note of this and behave with the chivalry that once populated the lands of our ancestors. For men in a society set the rules while women uphold them (सा स्त्री या अनुविधायिनी।). Therefore it is important for our young men to understand the dangers of free sex hedonism and to protect their sisters and potential love interests from this danger by behaving in a dutiful manner and engaging in Dharmic conduct.
Premarital sex is a snake oil sold as women’s rights:
Feminists and progressives have sold this snake oil that premarital sex is a sign of women’s rebellion against patriarchy and misogyny and that it is about women’s rights to women. This has been internalised to a deep extend by the anglicised and westernised middle and upper middle class women and men to a large extent in India. But as shown in the above paragraph, it has nothing to do with women’s rights as it restricts men’s right to have sex as well indirectly. But even if one looks past the motives of feminists and progressives in this respect and see into the effect of what happened to the societies which adopted these ideas, it will be very clear that premarital sex has actually caused a lot of chaos and destruction to families around the world, in every country. In countries where premarital sex is the norm, women have actually grown lot less happier than they were in traditional homes. Studies after studies have shown that premarital sex actually makes women miserable. So neither is the premarital sex a women’s rights issue nor is premarital sex something which does positive things for women
Pick Up Artists and MGTOWs of the west:
The US TV operas, Hollywood films and the Brothelwood films which glorify pre-marital sex of the west do not show the result of such premarital sex to either their audience back home nor the Indians who get colonised by those ideas. West is a miserable society behind their material wealth. The number of unmarried people there is now above 50% and is only growing faster. Women are getting miserable everyday. Most of their women do want to get married but could not find good men to marry. Most of the men who would have married in the traditional societies now do not see the point of marriage. Most of them end up as single mothers, mooching off the state, which is still overwhelmingly paid for by the men there in taxes, in the name of welfare and child support or from the guys they tricked into getting pregnant and use state force to get alimony. The half intelligent women who bought the feminist Kool aid of women empowerment and sought to further their careers while screwing around with meaningless sex find themselves partner-less in their 30+ age and are forced to live with cat piss as their true companions instead of babies.
The fact that premarital sex is the norm meant that the western men can get what most men want anyway i.e. free sex without commitment. They play platitudes to women empowerment and “you go girl” feminism since it is in their direct short term benefit of having sex without commitment. In the traditional families, penalty for such sex included massive penalties like shotgun wedding. But now, feminists have freed them from that shackles. So many men do not even see the point of getting married. Since the two most important things they got out of marriage – sex and children are now not a guarantee for them. Wife can legally deny them sex, the whole marital rape issue, and can legally take their children away from them in the courts in a divorce, which is increasingly initiated by them. Of course, women are increasingly initiating the divorces because when they do decide to settle in their 30s, all the good men were either already snatched by the intelligent conservative women who were still in their 20s and hence they are left to contend with leftover men, who they might never have even dated in their prime and hence become increasingly resentful towards after marriage.
Of course, women initiating majority of the divorces in a society where 50% of the marriages end in divorces meant that many men opt out of marriages even more there giving rise to the growth of MGTOW, or Men Going Their Own Way. These are men who have decided to opt out of anything to do with women outside of work and sex and would never become committed or marry. Given their options in the west, is it any wonder that this group is on the rise? Some of them even hail feminism for liberating men from their duties towards societies and family and instead allowing them to work for themselves and enjoy life with complete hedonism.
As any astute observer might notice, all of these problems are inter-related and it is all one leading up to another. The problems in the west started with the sexual revolution of the 1970s and the little cultural capital they had left was consumed up in the very next generation. Now their societies are in profound decay with their marriage rates plummeting. In fact, the problem has forced the government of UK to create massive incentives for creating and maintaining families, like giving two parent families tax breaks. The societal implications aside, what was the result of this supposed liberation of women on the psych and well being of women and men? Men for the large part were not actually affected by this social change. The men of today are not any worse off than men of the 1930s or 40s as they have substituted sex and family by porn and video games. Their happiness levels have remained the same today as it was back then. But as often pointed out in YP, women have become miserable as time went on. All the supposedly “women” liberating ideas of feminism and progressivism have only made the women miserable.
The question is, is Indian society willing to take a known poison willingly, if that poison gets labelled “Deva Prasadam”? Because this is how the premarital sex is being sold to Indian society as being women’s right and liberation of women. Even the most basic scrutiny of this poisonous idea would have shown that premarital sex is not a women’s right issue as the most significant beneficiary of the liberalisation of sex is men as men are the ones who are always looking for more sexual partners and sexual acts. Seeing the response of the urbanised, anglicised Indian women on twitter who responded to the issue, it looks they are indeed willing to or have already consumed the poison. The irony is that most of these women who defend this nonsense on twitter are well past their prime and are unlikely to find someone they think they deserve or they could have gotten when they were younger and had not wasted their youth on meaningless sex on the advice of feminist poison of career before family or meaningless sex being awesome. One has to wonder if these women are miserable inside and hence want other young Indian women to become sluts like they themselves are so that they themselves have company in their misery. Notice that men have benefits from both normalised premarital sex as seen by the emergence of PUAs and never married happy hippy men of the West as well as the traditionalist strict marital code societies of India as complained by feminists and liberals. But women have a lot to lose in a society where premarital sex is the norm if west is any indication. The anglicised urban Indian ladies should ask themselves if they would rather have a stable family like their mothers and grandmothers or the cat piss soaked single ladies of the west in their 30/40s, all for having few more sex partners, not necessarily more sex.
Not to forget, this does not mean Indian men should turn into PUA and MGTOWs as these men are hurting their pitRs by failing to procreate and provide for their children and building good society. The western society having turned against its men has not left any avenue for their men to behave responsibly and care for future generation. So, although PUAs might be happy in short run and enjoy hedonism while their societies burn, the death warrant of their future generations is already signed. This is another reason why India should tread carefully before its men decide to completely give up on future generation and fall into hedonism.
Abortion as Women’s right issue:
This is again a spurious argument. Abortion is not a women’s right issue any more than right to kill an infant is a women’s right issue. No body, in their right mind (or semi lunatic mind like the liberals) thinks that “muh child, muh right” as an argument to kill infants, they cannot take care of. Their right to decide on the life of the foetus ended when they decided not to take any precautions before their sexual act or ignored the risks associated with free sex (even safest contraceptions have some 1-2% failure rate). They have the right to use contraceptives, but that is not an excuse to kill the foetus. Unless the woman’s health is in direct danger from the foetus, in which case inaction on the part of society will kill the mother, there is no moral justification for killing the foetus.
Laws vs Societal Norms:
Many people who are against abortion think that changing abortion laws will fix this mess. It wont and it cant. For example, the single mother rate in anti-abortion Ireland is about 25%, less than the American figure of 50% but still is very high compared to single mother rate in present day, non-anglicised, non-mentally enslaved India i.e. 1%. This is a much more widespread societal problem and has to be advanced through social change and change in consciousness. But laws do play a role. There is a reason why the single mother rate in Ireland is only 25% as against the 50% rate of USA. A law which legalises what is immoral today, will become moral tomorrow since law will change the attitude of the society to it over time. This is why majority of our mothers and grandmothers would have seen abortion as an evil thing to do while majority of future anglicised culturally enslaved Indian women of today think abortion is a “muh rights” issue. If Government legalises murder of infants who cannot be fed today for economic reasons on “pragmatic grounds”, like how these animals view it, then in two generations questioning the killing of infants will evoke the same response from then young ones of the society who would have been brought up normalised to infanticide.
Fake CultureVeers and Indian Exceptionalism:
To make these matters worse, there are CultureVeers who think that these issues are real and yet think nothing needs to be done and that Indian society will survive this without any effort. That is when pointed out that India will become a middle income third world shit hole like Mexico ,Brazil or Romania, they will claim that uniqueness and oldness of deep rooted Indian culture will protect them from social rot which comes with liberalism and feminism. They are the cultural counter part of the “we survived Abrahamic assault for 1000 years and hence nothing will happen to us” type, i.e. the morons who forget that the very survival of our civilization required the blood and sacrifice of our countless number of ancestors. Their idea of anything goes will not help India or anybody except to serve as an excuse for these things for being lazy,hiding behind the myth of Indian Exceptionalism. India wont be a shit hole today if Indian exceptionalism is indeed true. Our family institutions are what kept us from turning into North Africa and these people want to take even that away. Preventing the demise of Indian society depends on whether or not we Indians learn from the mistakes of the decadent west and how much sacrifice we Indians are willing to make. Question is- are we ready to sacrifice and learn? If not, then there is no point in talking about Hindu civilisation and culture as there wont be anything left of it at the end of liberalism, just like how Christianity is all but dead in western societies.