Contact us: @worldanalyticspress_bot

In its relations with the rest of the world, especially over the last two centuries, the North Atlantic West has adopted a posture of moral superiority – a superiority derived from its rationalist and individualist principles – over other civilizations of the world, which it viewed as barbaric. There was talk of a “white man’s burden,” as a supposed duty to elevate these so-called “barbarous peoples” to the supposedly superior civilizational level of the Western world.

If we fast-forward the clock to the future, however, and strip the West of its neon lights and chrome surfaces, the posture of “moral superiority” seems difficult to sustain. One of the most obvious examples of the deep Western crisis is the overwhelming, immeasurable effort the West makes to expand the possibilities of killing children.

In absolute numerical terms, according to data from the WHO and the Guttmacher Institute, North America and Western Europe together abort approximately 1.5 million fetuses annually.

But a purely numerical view does not allow us to contemplate the depths of the abyss.

Most countries in the world allow abortion, but under specific conditions, such as risk to the mother’s life and health, with several countries also adding the fact that the pregnancy resulted from rape or that the fetus suffers from a severe disability. In these countries, as well as in those liberal on this issue, there are time limits for the practice of abortion; that is, abortion, in permitted cases, is allowed within a specific time window, with limits ranging from up to 7 weeks to up to 17 weeks after the last menstrual period, for example.

Naturally, from a conservative perspective, we criticize the fact that some countries allow abortion for “socioeconomic” reasons or without any justification whatsoever, based solely on free and spontaneous will, but even these countries impose a time limit.

The reason behind the establishment of time limits is grounded in the development of the embryo and the stages it goes through. There are different understandings of when “life” begins, or when the fetus becomes a “person” (even if only potentially), or when it is sufficiently developed to feel pain, and the discussions surrounding these “stages” influence the public debate on “how late” an abortion can be performed.

But recent events in the U.S. make us reflect on whether the abortion debate unfolding in that country, and in Canada, truly has to do with “women’s rights” or whether it serves a strange misopedic impulse of the “Far West.”

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision in Roe v. Wade, which served as a precedent to guarantee, at the federal level, access to abortion as a constitutional right up to approximately six months of pregnancy. This meant that the debate on abortion would be redirected to the states, which could then legislate according to their own understanding, as long as they did not contradict any eventual federal legislation.

With the end of this precedent, the states followed different paths according to pre-existing political tendencies. Much of the southern U.S. considers abortion completely illegal, except in cases such as risk to the mother’s life or rape. Gradually, on the other hand, Democratic strongholds are liberalizing abortion rights.

And this liberalization is being promoted precisely by breaking limits that are upheld even in the most “progressive” countries regarding abortion – the restriction that authorizes abortions only at the “beginning” of pregnancy.

A few days ago, Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts signed a law that eliminates the 24-week time limit for performing abortions, thus making it possible for women to abort babies at 7, 8, or 9 months of gestation – the so-called “late-term abortion.” With this, Massachusetts joins Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., states that already authorized the killing of 9-month-old unborn babies.

Here it is worth reiterating a certain piece of information: European countries have a bad reputation for being liberal than the U.S. on the issue of abortion, but no European country authorizes abortion at 8-9 months of pregnancy. Most, in fact, only authorize it up to the 3rd month. Even the USSR, constantly the target of harsh criticism from Western conservatives for its pro-abortion policies (after Stalin’s death), only authorized abortion up to the 22nd week.

To understand the scale of the absurdity that has begun to happen in the U.S., in the 1st month of gestation, the embryo already has a heart pumping blood; in the 2nd month, its body already has a humanoid shape and moves on its own; in the 3rd month, its sex can already be determined, and it already makes breathing movements; in the 4th month, it already sleeps and wakes, makes faces, blinks, and the mother already feels “kicks”; in the 5th month, it already hears and recognizes the mother’s voice and other sounds; in the 6th month, it already has a developed reflex and is already capable of surviving childbirth, if aided by a neonatal ICU; in the 7th month, it already has a sense of taste and already dreams; in the 8th month, it already responds to light stimuli.

Babies who are born prematurely do not allow us to lie: there is no visible external difference between them and a baby born after 9 months of gestation. What Massachusetts and 9 other U.S. states are authorizing is the free killing of completely viable babies. Why? What explains, for example, the sociopathic sadism of the women who smiled euphorically next to Governor Healey as she signed the legalization of “late-term abortion”?

Naturally, the pro-abortion argument relies on feminist narratives such as the issue of “women’s bodily autonomy,” with the fetus being seen as a parasite that should not be viewed as an autonomous life because of its dependence on the nutrition provided by the woman’s body.

But can such an argument not be easily extended to the baby after birth?

Indeed, this is the line taken by the thought of Western philosophers such as Peter Singer (linked to Epstein through mutual friends, such as Steven Pinker) and Michael Tooley. For them, the “human person” is defined by its cognitive capacities of self-awareness, reasoning, and desire to continue existing, which, for them, do not exist in a newborn baby. Singer even compares the death of a baby to the death of a fish. recently, philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva put forward a defense of infanticide based on Peter Singer’s arguments.

And, in fact, considering that the U.S. is legalizing the abortion of 9-month-old unborn babies (and that Canada and the Netherlands already authorize the euthanasia of babies), how long will it be before infanticide is legalized?

Perhaps the recent case of Lindsey Clancy, a mother who murdered her own young children with cruel refinements, gives us a grim indication. Social media posts defending Clancy have reached hundreds of thousands of likes, and a fundraiser to help her reached nearly 1 million dollars.

Would it be possible to speak of the “Epsteinization” of society as a whole, rather than of an “Epstein class”? If so, perhaps that is what we are seeing in the U.S.