Friday, August 23, 2019 22:30

Posts Tagged ‘Eugenics’

It’s not “pro-choice”, it’s pro-ABORTION, and that means pro-death.

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

– Wiccapundit

My take on the abortion issue starts with this.  Anyone who calls themselves “pro-choice” or who claims to be in favor of “women’s reproductive rights” has to answer just one question for me: do you believe there should be more abortions performed in the world, or fewer?  If you don’t answer the latter, then you are in favor of death.

Pro-abortion advocates always claim to support a “woman’s right to choose.”  Except that to them, the choice is always for abortion, never for keeping the baby.  I don’t care how often the claim is made that abortion must remain available in case of rape or incest.   With over a million abortions performed a year in the U.S., most of these abortions are performed for the convenience of the mother.  It is simply inconvenient for them to have a child come into their lives, even if briefly before being given up for adoption.

At some point, we must ask pro-abortion advocates one further question: at what point will even you draw the line and say that certain conduct is beyond the bounds of humanity?  When a child survives an abortion which was done because the baby had an easily correctable cleft palate, then survives the abortion and is left to die, what do you say to that?

Can human beings at least agree that this is beyond the pale?  This is eugenics, plain and simple, and it is here now.


Is Your PC Red?

Sunday, April 25th, 2010

– Elphaba

Here’s the lasted Commie Tunes from Commie Blaster:

George Soros seems to pull the strings of the Obama administration…this postulates that he controls much of our information technology, as well, particularly Google (no surprise).   Apple and Microsoft apparently have similar political leanings, and are directly influenced by Soros’ “open society” (i.e., socialist) vision for the world.  Pay particular attention to part where Bill Gates is discussing ways in which to reduce the world population (this is particularly creepy): vaccines, health care, and reproductive health services (code words for abortion).  The abortion part, I get.  No babies = fewer people, if that is your objective.  But vaccines and health care are supposed to improve life expectancy, so WTF does he mean by that statement?  It sounds kinda sinister.

Discuss amongst yourselves.


Obama and Eugenics, Redux

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

– Wiccapundit

As a follow-up to Elphaba’s post on Obamacare and Eugenics, I present this startling short video on Obama’s approval of policies that are straight out of Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” – a self-described “weeding out” of the black race. That Obama could stand in support of Planned Parenthood either shows his astonishing ignorance or his total venality.


Obamacare and Eugenics

Monday, March 15th, 2010

– Elphaba

Fetus at 5 months of gestation

I have been following the abortion subsidy debate with regards to Obamacare with great interest.  I think that many Democrats are showing their true colors in the sense that “pro-choice” for them really means pro-abortion, and this raises some major ethical concerns.  James Taranto in his WSJ’s Best of the Web column, discusses this subject so well that I am excerpting it here, as I don’t think I can articulate it any better than he does:

National Review’s Bob Costa catches up with Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who, although not opposed to ObamaCare, has said he and a dozen or so like-minded colleagues will vote “no” if it includes subsidies for abortion:

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.

“What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue–come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

Stupak frames his argument too narrowly. Forget about “life” for a while–the Democratic leaders’ position ought to be equally shocking to those on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate.

What Stupak is hearing from his colleagues is not the pro-choice argument that the government should permit abortion as a matter of individual liberty. Rather, they claim that the government should encourage abortion as a social expedient–a cost-cutting measure. (more…)