Seizing the means of reproduction

Yesterday marked the overturning of the controversial piece of federal legislation known as Roe V. Wade. It helped legalize abortion across the United States of America, changing demographics in ways that have completely transformed American political theatre, immigration, and our lifestyles. The fundamental conflict between abortion advocates and anti-abortion advocates is whether or not abortion is murder. In DMSG’s eyes, life does begin at conception, because it biologically and chemically does. To suggest otherwise is pseudoscience in our eyes. That being said, we are not against abortion and feel that while abortion is murder, so is eating meat, and so is any self-harming behavior that involves the destruction of cells. Fundamentally, murder is part and parcel of our existence in a biosphere no matter how you look at it and humans aren’t exempt from destruction. Sometimes destruction is necessary, in times of self-defense and liberation, while other times its unnecessary., such as self-harming behaviors. At DMSG, we believe unnecessary destruction to be evil and that begs the question: are abortions necessary or unnecessary destruction?

It becomes arbitrary, and the answer depends entirely on what you value in life. Ultimately, as materialists, DMSG would need to create a framework of requirements and priorities for what defines a human life worth living. The general consensus among the DMSG’s members right now is that abortion is fine, because the world has too many people as is, and that the destruction of fetuses isn’t felt by any truly conscious entity besides the mother.. While DMSG recognizes that fetuses are sentient, if the feelings aren’t felt by any observer than the pain caused by aborting a fetus is largely meaningless to the fetus. DMSG recognizes that fetuses have emotions, can feel things, and even respond to language overhead from outside the womb. DMSG also recognize that mammalian fetuses have dreams that give them depictions of what the outside world looks like., implying that they aren’t wholly cut-off from the world around them. Fetuses are wholly human, and the negation of their status as living beings and the dehumanization of fetuses is what DMSG is more interested in discussing.

DMSG believes that because humans and other lifeforms are so connected with the world around them, in terms of resource extraction and social interactions, that the value of life really rests on how much society can make use of said life and how much it costs for said life to exist. A small weed growing through the crack in the sidewalk isn’t necessarily an issue for society at large and is relatively benign, not consuming any resources that we would’ve made use of anyways. Human beings, on the other hand, do not have the luxury of being benign unless they live as hermits or within tribes inside forests or jungles. The carbon footprint of each human being is enormous, and the resources required to simply feed and shelter people in the industrial era are staggering. A human being, subsisting off of modern necessities, has the challenge of proving his or her worth to society. Due to this, DMSG’s views on abortion vary by the fetus, as it’s based on the expected inputs and outputs that this individual could be reasonably expected to consume and produce throughout their life. DSMG would value the human fetus of someone with the intellect of Einstein over a human fetus with the intellect of a Golden Retriever. In addition to intellect, familial health histories as well as factors like the MOA2 gene would play a great role in determining whether or not DMSG values the life of a human fetus. For us, there are no benign humans in an industrial society, only parasitic or productive humans. Human fetuses who are predisposed to not be compos mentus, likely to be socially stunted, or inadequate in other ways to being productive assets to society are not valuable in DMSG’s eyes.

This is not to say that DMSG doesn’t respect existing, conscious humans with genetic problems, but rather that we are strongly against the creation of more faulty, less capable people in the future. Put simply, at DMSG we believe in eugenics because the faults of the individual are the burden of society and we value preventing drag from individuals upon society’s progress. A simple abortion of a probably faulty human can save hundreds of thousands, to even millions, in healthcare costs, and free up those resources to be put to use elsewhere in more productive areas. While we can use genetic modification to perhaps erase the genetic, immutable faults of people, the truth is that we don’t want more people being born in a society that continually needs fewer and fewer people to function. In modern society, in an age of automation, more people isn’t good planning. We don’t rely on serfs to till the fields anymore or conscripted peasants to fight our wars, but rather tractors and skilled personnel. Humans, slowly but surely, are increasingly shifting to become the managers of labor-saving technology, rather than the laborer itself. Going forward, the people born into this world should reflect an emphasis on engineered quality, rather than spontaneously produced quantity, and for that reason, DMSG believes that the state should have a greater say in reproduction.

Keeping the current rate of declining sperm health in human males, the Developed World could potentially be infertile in several decades. While many people see this as a grave problem, DMSG sees this as an amazing opportunity to introduce socialism to the womb. Sperm can be synthesized from bone marrow cells, so the natural production of sperm isn’t necessarily an extinction-level concern that some might make it to be., as long as the healthcare industry is able to make suitable replacements. What DMSG has discussed is a system in which the state sets a quota for how many humans are projected to be needed across the different industries it regulates, and from there it establishes a birthing quota based on that number, among other factors. If the state were to monopolize the synthesis of sperm, and help eligible couples conceive, it’d have the power to astronomically change humanity for the better. Genetic modification, rather than being a forbidden game changer, could proceed in lockstep improvement across entire generations, enhancing humans to not only keep up with increasingly sophisticated technologies and sciences, but allow these people to meaningfully contribute to their fields in ways that the vast majority of workers today cannot. By implementing this system of state selective reproduction, overnight we could begin erasing single motherhood, genetic diseases, mental and physical illness, and much more from society. This is all in the future, however, and to get there we must get back to acknowledging the present.

For DMSG, the Roe V. Wade legislation being overturned is seen as a dangerous step back, as it will undoubtedly add more unwanted people into a society that has will not easily foster them. DMSG believes it is imperative that we prevent children from growing up in broken households, strange circumstances, and from lacking the resources they need to fully develop. The fundamental problems surrounding abortion have not been addressed, by either conservative bible thumpers or liberal hedonistic nihilists. At the end of the day, the fetus is alive and it’s more a matter of determining if their life would be a prudent long term investment for society. For DMSG, aborting faulty or unwanted fetuses can save a great deal of pain in the long-run. As an adopted person myself, this issue particularly interests me as many of the arguments made would be for the deletion of people like myself. As a contributing member to society, who devotes a fair amount of volunteer time and personal resources to trying to better society, I think that if adoption isn’t in the question, then abortion is far more humane than letting an innocent person suffer through a long life of hardship. DMSG believes that both political sides on this issue fail to take into account the humanity of the people in question, relegating it to the dustbin over emotionally-driven arguments for principles. At DMSG, if the principles don’t benefit industrial society and the welfare of the working people, then the principles are detrimental in discussions concerning those topics.