Remember our martyrs. In death a member of Project Babyfarm has a name. Her name is Margaret Waters.
Sometimes when you think about something, it just “clicks”. The world has optical illusions and when you think about them for a long time, you suddenly recognize them. Consider the Victorian dress: Why did women wear it? Why these corsets? Well, corsets provided one huge advantage. They could cause spontaneous abortion:
Women utilized birth control methods to control family size, but if these did not work, many times they relied on abortion. Wearing tightly laced corsets not surprisingly had negative health effects on the unborn baby. It was not uncommon for a pregnancy to end in miscarriage due to tight-lacing. Although devastating to women attempting to grow a family, women fearing financial strife depended on corsetry as a means to control family size and avoid unwarranted scorn from her family.
This is good old fashioned traditional family planning, as God had intended before heathen liberals introduced Roe vs Wade.
But importantly, the dresses allowed women another option: They could conceal their pregnancy altogether. In Victorian novels you generally don’t see women described as pregnant, or as delivering a child, even though these novels were written for women. They just suddenly have a baby.
Why would you want to hide a pregnancy? Well, that ties into another problem Victorian society had:
From the early 1840s, questions were being openly asked on the floor of the House of Commons where Thomas Wakley, coroner, surgeon and MP shocked his audience by claiming that infanticide, ‘was going on to a frightful, to an enormous, a perfectly incredible extent.’ By the 1860s, the problem was believed to have reached crisis proportions and figured as one of the great plagues of society, alongside prostitution, drunkenness and gambling. According to some experts, it was impossible to escape from the sight of dead infants’ corpses, especially in the capital, for they were to be found everywhere from interiors to exteriors, from bedrooms to train compartments.
Why didn’t these women put up their babies for adoption? Well, many did actually:
The ‘baby farmer’ was usually a woman of a mature age and poor working-class background who would offer either to look after the ‘unwanted’ child or ensure that it was ‘passed on’ to suitable adoptive parents. The fee for this transaction varied according to the specifics of the contract but was usually situated between £7 and £30. In the majority of cases there was also a tacit understanding between the two parties that, in the harsh conditions of life in working-class areas of the nation’s cities, the child’s chances of survival would be extremely slim. What particularly outraged public feeling was that this trade had a visible, almost respectable, side to it for it was practised openly through advertising, in national, regional and local newspapers.
Humans are not thát different from hamsters, but instead of eating our babies, we throw them in the water, leave them to die somewhere, smother them with a pillow, or bury them alive. This is just how things used to work and people hate hearing it, it clashes with their “RETVRN TO TRADITION” romantic fantasy in their head.
Many people tend to take the messages they inherit from the past at face value. Imagine if people in the future had to base their image of today based off what we publicly show them through social media and articles penned under our own name. They would imagine we spend our days laying in bikini on tropical beaches drinking cocktails, instead of sitting in offices, jerking off to porn, being racist on the Internet or smoking weed while laying on the couch.
It’s similar to how people think old architecture used to be beautiful, forgetting we knocked down all the slums and other ugly stuff.
But try explaining this to the altright edgelords, who are really based, trad, chad and redpilled, until it’s time to explain to them why we have legalized abortion:
You can view the replies, from hundreds of LSWMs who just refuse to believe that this is how it really was.
But now it’s my turn to be an edgelord, by saying the quiet part out loud:
These women did nothing wrong.
I agree with Peter Singer, that infanticide should be legal for 24 hours. Just as we continue killing pigs and cows with modern human methods, women should be able to humanely kill their newborn infant for a 24 hour period. Women in the Victorian era had the baby farms where this humane infanticide was practiced:
Baby farms were denounced as nothing more than ‘centres of infanticide’, a convenient way for women to solve the problem of unwanted and illegitimate births. It was, for instance, widely believed that these babies were often left to wilt away and die, sometimes helped along with a little soother known as ‘Kindness’. These rumours found credence in the fact that at this time it was common practice, not only among those whose looked after children, but also among mothers themselves, to use a certain ‘Godfrey’s Cordial’ to quieten the babies, and that this, if dosed incorrectly, could lead to ‘the sleep of death’.
Infanticide is rarely needed these days thanks to legal abortion, but imagine you give birth to a child with just one eye in the middle of its head, or some other horrific birth defect. Under such circumstances, infanticide may just be the best option.
Note, infanticide was not unique to the Victorians either. It was in fact the general rule throughout history. When Iceland very reluctantly became Christian, they demanded to be allowed to continue exposing infants to the elements, a method of infanticide. So if you wish to be a Neopagan LARPer with a ponytail and a Mjölnir hanging on your chest who roasts a dead pig on a fire, you should consider adopting this element too.
People like Fucko the Clown love to point out here that equality is not true. And I have to agree. Consider the difference between what pigs can do and what children can do:
If we’re allowed to kill pigs we own, we should be allowed to kill infants we give birth to.