It’s Abortion Dammit

It’s Abortion Dammit

I’ve written many times about abortion.  I usually try to avoid social issues. But, since this is the era of “pussy hats,” and women’s power, this must be discussed and dealt with.  I cannot hold my tongue any longer.  If you are pro abortion, then say you are.  Stop hiding behind a euphemism.   That’s right, boys and girls – a “women’s choice,” is a euphemism.  There is no other way to say it.

pussy hat

If you don’t know what an euphemism means, according to Miriam-Webster it is:  the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant.  And, therefore, using the phrase a “women’s right to choose,” is a euphemism.

Abortion is a very emotional issue and the left has made it a rallying cry of the Democratic Party.  I can’t even say it has anything to do with Progressivism.  Progressivism deals primarily with economic issues.  At least, it traditionally did.  However, the Democratic Party has taken it to a new level.  They call it a “women’s choice.”  Why?  Because calling it abortion says what it really and truly means.

I’ve dealt with Margaret Sanger and the true reasons for Planned Parenthood in other articles.  See e.g. Abortion, Margaret Sanger and Eugenics.”  In that article, I showed facts relating to Margaret Sanger and her personal reasons for wanting contraception and abortion legal.  It had nothing to do with a “women’s right to choose.”  It was exclusively to rid the Earth of Black People.  That’s right.  She believed in eugenics and believed in ridding the world of African Americans.  She was a racist and a white supremacist.  You can actually argue she was a Nazi living in the United States.  Yes, she knew what abortion really is – the killing of an unborn baby.  And, she didn’t try to hide it.

Additionally, I’ve also discussed a film about it in another prior article.  That film is October Baby.  See e.g. http://www.hollywoodrepublican.net/2012/04/october-baby-another-film-liberals-dont-want-you-see/  In that film, we witnessed the effects of a botched abortion on a young woman.  Anyone who sees that film truly knows abortion is about killing.  However, instead of being told the truth by the Democratic Party, we are fed a constant amount of publicity about it being a women’s issue.  Unfortunately, it has gotten to this point.  And, I can’t therefore hold my tongue any longer.

I want people to call it abortion.  All Social Conservatives should start calling it abortion.  Let’s not fall into the trap any longer.  Because, every time we fall into that trap, we cave to the Left’s monopoly on the message.  And, that is why we are even having this argument.  Enough is enough.  It is therefore time, the Right controls the message.

Therefore, from this day forward, you will never hear me use the word “women’s right to choose.”  I just will not do it.  It’s abortion.  End of Story.  Plain and simple.  Deal with it.  Drop the mike!

Thank you.  I have been on my soapbox enough and am finished.

Share This Post

5 Responses to "It’s Abortion Dammit"

  1. One of John Kerry’s “go-to” anti-Christs’ was Genghis Khan. As Khan swept across Europe, he killed all boys and men in the adversarial clans of the people he conquered, and then left behind the women. This was one of the “effective” precursors to Margaret Sangers’ genocide of “others”, a parallel competitor in the struggle for no enemies left behind, an Aryan cultural that generated the Holocaust, purity by her standards.

    One of the current, below the surface, rationales for abortion is control and perpetuation of a “permanent underclass.” Within the consequences of abortion is that it disproportionately affects minorities. It is cultural Ebola, with agents like Kermit Gosnell, who support a form of racism, by genocide. The proven fact is that “intellect”, “wisdom” and “vision” do not come with DNA pre-selection.

    The Aztecs used to offer human sacrifices to a God. Today there is a phalanx of thought that allows for the extermination of apostates, beware your definition of “apostate.”

    If you are to argue the “right to choose,” do you favor your mother’s choice not to embrace abortion? Why?

    Any Christian concept of “Natural Law” has no struggle with “the sanctity of life.” Even Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” is a natural competition, not eugenics. If choice is so sacrosanct, then women inherited a seat of disrepute for their choice of the first bite of that apple. “Choice” implies a learning process, a change in direction when indicated. Einstein’s’ expectation of different results, comes to mind.

    Thus, in any ethical vacuum, there must be a rush to embrace secularism and radical progressivism, the false narrative of a moral and ethical salve of conscience. However, and once, and if you accept the concept of “unalienable rights,” it becomes the arena of convenient definitions, such as when does life begin, what is murder, if that is your quandary.

    We have arrived, or are dangerously close, to predicting the physical menu from DNA. Princeton has a service that addresses breeding out disease. Oh, how Sanger would have celebrated. And yet, the ignorance is in not understanding that DNA does not predict intellectual or psychological attributes.

    Lee M. Silver, a professor at Princeton University, is the author of the book Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family (1998). In the book he takes a positive view on human cloning, designer babies and similar prospects. In this book he coined the term reprogenetics, use of reproductive and genetic technologies to select and genetically modify embryos with germinal choice technology for the purpose of human enhancement to describe the prospective fusion of reproductive technologies and genetics, which will allow positive eugenic (that set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population) actions on an individual level. Does Hitler come to mind?

    Little of what Silver has to offer impacts the future ability of refined individual “intellect,” “wisdom” and “Vision” and, as yet, has no mechanism to create the “guaranteed” Aryan prodigy. Is that a “viable choice” for a culture?

    And yet if that were available to Stephen Hawkins’ mother or father, God forbid they were “choice prone,” then the intellect, wisdom and vision of that life could well have been lost. We would never have known the magnitude of that loss. And that would have had the ignorant, blind, and prejudiced blessing of the “choice” phalanx without any spiritual humility or intellectual honesty or embrace of fallibility.

    Most reputable reproductive technologies and genetics experts will concede that a properly fertilized embryo, if that “new life,” if it is given Darwin’s chances to succeed, these are the criteria define life as viable. Beyond that, it takes a redefinition, to “comfortably” know how a serious conscience can purge itself of morality abstractly contrived.

    You see, those outside of the band of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, never felt it was dishonest to steal from strangers. Are we strangers to the concept of moral ethics? If one believes in God, that road is terribly difficult, always moderately dystopic. If one does not believe, there is no road.

    Reply
  2. Whether I agree or oppose abortion isn’t the issue. The issue is if I insist that all women abide by my moral view on the subject. That’s hardly freedom.

    It’s typical GOP hypocrisy. They spout of individual freedom then insist that others abide by their views.

    Reply
    1. then, it’s obvious you didn’t read the article. I’m not saying you can’t be pro-abortion. I’m just saying you can’t call it pro-choice. Call it what it is! It’s abortion and if you’re for it, then you’re for it.

      Reply
      1. Sure I read it. But I completely disagree with you. Whether I am pro abortion or not isn’t the issue. I can be against abortion and still believe it is not my place to tell a woman that they must follow my point of view.

        Where do you stand? Are you saying that, because you think abortion is wrong, women cannot be allowed to chose abortion?

        Reply
        1. My opinion really doesn’t matter to the argument I make. (For the record, I’m against abortion). However, all I’m saying is to call a spade a spade. Either you are pro-abortion or against abortion. There is no in-between. If you believe it’s a women’s choice, you are pro-abortion. Stop getting rid of the guilt by creating a euphemism. Like I said in the article, I will not judge you for either position, but just take one and stop trying to change it in the nomenclature.

          Reply

Post Comment