35 years, 51 million dead americans, and a very happy Herr Hitler later.......

Bush Vs Choice, a radical leftist femi-nazi website, is putting on its annual "Blog in support of death" day, wherein they use the millions of femi-nazi bloggers worldwide to chime in and sound off in support of murder in the name of "choice". You see today is the 35th anniversary of Roe Vs Wade, that celebrated court case which gave women the "right" to slaughter their unborn children at a rate that would have made Herr Hitler gasp with admiration.


And given the celebratory nature of today's anniversary, you will undoubtedly be hearing the word "choice" being shouted to the rafters in rapturous joy.

Except that the pro-abortion movement didn't always believe in choice. In fact the pro-abortion movement began as a way of ensuring "undesirables" (you know, the poor, the colored, the Jew, etc) didn't pollute the gene pool. Now if that sounds like something the Nazi's would have supported, there is a reason for that. Namely that the US abortion and eugenics movement (pretty much the exact same movement really) was in fact a major inspiration for, and antecedent to, the Nazi party and its brutal practises. In fact no less a expert on Nazi "medicine" than Joeseph Mengele stated that the Nazis practises could never had been instituted had it not been for California's experiment with forced sterilisation. An initiative which was roundly supported in the burgeoning pro-abortion/pro-eugenic movement.

In fact, from the very beginning the Abortion movement was tied into, dependent upon, and vociferously championed by, the eugenics movement as a way of ensuring the "purity" of the human race. Naturally this "purity" was expressed in racial, and economic terms. I am sure sharp minded readers will recognise the similarity of focus between the various eugenically driven "unfit to breed arguments" and the modern day "compassion driven" arguments that children who are born to poor, underage, minority, or unready, mothers would be better off dead. Its interesting that the same people abortionist's used to think needed "forced sterilisation" are the peoples who Abortionists feel should be "encouraged" to have abortions today, isn't it?


To begin with let us never forget that Planned parenthood's founder Margaret Sanger, was a lifelong eugenicist who believed the best way to "improve our race" was to, in her own words, "apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." In other words, forced sterilisation of undesirables, as well as the segregation of those undesirables into what can only be accurately described as concentration and reeducation camps. This, as those of you who paid attention in history class may remember, was a policy eventually instituted by that great progressive government and outspoken admirer of Mrs Sanger's policies, the National Socialist Party of Germany.


However, after the sheer scale of the crimes the Nazi party committed in the name of eugenics became clear, everyone associated with the eugenics movement scrambled to hide their affiliation to it. Thus in the 50's the argument changed from "protecting the human race from genetic inferiority" to "protecting a woman's reproductive freedom" and ensuring her "choice" This is the argument we have been bludgeoned with since.

What I find truly interesting though, is that for all the modern rhetoric about "protecting a woman's choices" the exact same "racial superiority" sentiments are alive and well in the Pro-abortion movement to this day. After all are we not told constantly that minorities, and the poor, need the government to fund their abortions in order to protect their "rights" And haven't the vast majority of the 51 million abortions performed in the last 35 years been performed on mothers who are either poor, minorities, or both? Strange isn't it, that although no proponent of abortion would admit to the racially biased tenets of eugenics, the result of the modern Pro-choice movement is exactly the same as what the early eugenicists claimed was necessary? Or that famed liberal economists have even come up with models which explicitly argue that we have already seen the benefits that the early eugenicists promised?

But even if we were to accept that those on the Pro-death side of things really do simply want to ensure women have the right to make a choice, a rational look at the actions of the pro-death camp would seem to suggest only one choice is valid. For example when there was a push made to require women get ultrasounds to inform them on the living nature of the "clump of cells" within them, it was "Pro-choice" people, who felt that women shouldn't be informed of what their choice entails. Likewise legislation designed to give women information on non-abortion alternatives such as adoption, have been regularly and consistently opposed by the "Pro-choice" crowd. In the same vein when the "silent no more" campaign of women who regretted their "choice" began, pro-choicer's either ignored it, or condemned it. Strange for those who claim to only want to "help women make informed choices" to do everything they can to ensure only one side of an argument is heard, is it not?

The wariness of any rational observer regarding the abortion movements commitment to "helping women retain the right to make choices" is even further degraded by the fact that the "protecting a woman's reproductive freedom" argument is invalid to begin with; not that any pro-abortion supporter will ever admit to that of course. In fact, should one even suggest such a thing, he is immediately labelled as "anti-woman". Somehow, the fact that a woman has the exact same reproductive freedom as a man does, IE the ability to choose whether or not to engage in sexual intercourse, is considered to be an "anti-woman" argument, despite the fact that every single proponent of abortion believes that the exact same argument justifies going to virtually any lengths to prosecute and "bring to justice" "deadbeat dads". Why it is OK to "force a man to be a father", yet "forcing a woman to be a mother" is not, has never yet been logically or rationally explained. Nor can it be.

But then, most, if not all, of the pro-death camp's arguments are invalid. There is the plainly counter factual argument that as its "her body" the woman should have the right to do what she wishes with it. The fact that "her body" somehow now has two separate genetic structures, two different sets of organs and systems, and two separate blood types, is ignored. In the few instances where it is even addressed, it is simply swept under the rug by the refrain that "its just a clump of cells". Which while technically correct, is also intentionally confusing as the human body itself can be accurately described as "a clump of cells" That a developing embryo becomes identifiably human to even the most cursory visual examination is either not discussed, or dismissed as "an appeal to emotion"


Because after all somehow, seeing video like this, and realising that what you are seeing isn't just a clump of cells, is an emotional response wiht no basis in logic reason, or fact.





Remember folks, although the great work of protecting America from our undesirables is never done, the pro-choice movement is doing its best to continue it; Heil Sanger!