The Abortion: Proofs of a Conspiracy...pp. 73-77

This is a weird coincidence that I could, in no way, have planned out. I do not do a lot of planning ahead for this blog. I preview each section a week ahead of time but there is no schedule. I do not have a calendar (July 20th, discuss abortion), because I do not know two weeks ahead of time what I will be covering. All of that being said, this would have been one hell of a coincidence if the topic came up three weeks ago.

(International readers: the US effectively outlawed federal protection for abortion rights three weeks ago)

One of my character traits is that I don't gossip. I'm not bragging, it's just that I don't see the point. I can see that some people may get a certain catharsis from gossiping, I can also see that some people may use other people's foibles to launch into larger discussions. In the case of the last viewpoint, I make up issues for my ethics courses that would be the stuff of gossip to discuss ethical issues concerning lying or cheating. I am not taking a moral high road against cheating, in my mind, one is presented with two options: you can be someone who gossips or you can be someone that keeps secrets. I chose the latter. 

Of course, there is a certain case of the gossip monger. Someone that spreads rumors and repeats every salacious detail can simply for the reason that they have that information. This person, I believe has a place in hell according to Dante (circle 8 bolgia 9 perhaps), needs to gossip because it makes them feel better about themselves. Jen and Nick's divorce is just fodder for them because they get to tsk tsk about the divorce but they also get to feel important for knowing about it. 

This is going to cleave together my second introduction topic (well, third actually), which is the ad hominem fallacy. The fallacy of ad hominem is when you attack the arguer rather than the argument. Instead of dealing with what the person is saying, I just attack their character and call it a win. This happens all of the time, and I'm not going to detail the fallacy or the construction of it; because I do that at my other job.

All three of these topics come together in a letter from Spartacus (Weishaupt) to Marius (I forget) dated September of 1783. Weishaupt writes, "I am now in the most embarrassing of situations...What think you--my sister-in-law is with child."

Ooops. Weishaupt knocked up his sister-in-law. Though I think that the term actually means something else in his day because he's trying to get a marriage license to legitimize the baby. Unless he means his brother's wife's sister--but my brother's wife's sister isn't my sister-in-law. Weishaupt complains that he's always been so careful in the past, but this time, well Weishaupt has an oopsie-baby on the way.

Robison, thinking the reader is a dullard, sheds light on the situation by referencing a different letter. This one is also from Weishaupt but to Cato (Zwack--one of the other higher-ups in the Illuminati) dated about the same time, but Robison never provides us with a date. In this letter, Weishaupt asks Zwack if Zwack finds it agreeable to have Weishaupt as a brother-in-law. 

Robison seems confused about this as well. He describes the situation as the woman being either Weishaupt's former wife's sister (his first wife had died) or the widow of a deceased brother. In either case, it seems like Zwack is the brother of the woman, and thus by 18th century standards needs to give permission for the woman to marry. Weishaupt attempts to procure the solution, which is a medically induced abortion but we are not left with an answer as to whether he was successful. The issue seems to just vanish and we are left with no conclusion. This, however, does not stop Robison from offering a different end to the story, "I meet with another account, that the sister of Zwack threw herself from the top of a tower, and beat out her brains.."

Let's be clear, Robison made this story up. There's no information or letter which describes the death of a woman by suicide. In fact, Robison claims that the woman and child were fine. The woman became a midwife and the baby, "who now lives to thank his father for his endeavors to murder him." 

What's fascinating is that the pro-forced birth position has not changed in centuries. What is also left out of the story is the woman's point of view. Which is another example of the forced birth side of things never changing. Did she want the child? Did she want to get married? We can assume that she wanted to avoid the scandal as much as Weishaupt...perhaps even more, but what matters here is not the situation, it is why we are reading about it. This has no bearing on the conspiracy itself or the allegations of conspiracy. It's just gossip. In the kingdom of Bavaria Weishaupt's attempt to procure an abortive remedy may have been illegal--but that has no bearing on the Illuminati. 

This is just moral outrage fodder for the gossip mongers reading the book. It is such an ad hominem because it completely ignores the position that the Illuminati was taking with regard to the effect of the church on the state. In fact, it is plain that it ignores it since the entire concept of the scandal is only based on the cultural pressure of children only being permitted within wedlock. Robison continues to miss the point when he compares the ideals of Weishaupt and how he seemed to be repulsed at Cato's licentiousness. I don't see the contradiction, Cato's prodigal ways were scaring off some men of influence they had hoped to recruit, and Weishaupt admits that he had always been careful but this time the woman still became pregnant. The fact that he had to get married, despite his objections to the church isn't hypocrisy to his ideals if that's the only way forwards as a legitimate person. The only way that the child isn't a bastard is if they are married. The only way the woman isn't a whore is if they are married. Weishaupt is just playing ball here. Weishaupt also admits, according to Robison, all of the facts of the case.

Robison seems to take offense at Weishaupt's excuse of needing to maintain a legitimate standing in society, but I fail to see why he is offended. The only reason that Robison brings it up is to discredit him and it seems to have worked. So yes Robison, the very fact that you are using this saga to belittle and discredit both Weishaupt and the Illuminati is the reason the Weishaupt attempted to hide it.