63% of Texas Babies Killed in Abortions are Black or Hispanic

1950s nun

Texans kill a lot of babies, and most of them are black and hispanic

Sixty-three percent of the 77,152 babies who were murdered in Texas abortions in 2009 are black or hispanic. 

That has to be balanced against the 435,480 babies who were killed in the 27 states that report these numbers plus the District of Columbia. The last time I checked, there were 50 states, not 27, which means that abortions are grossly underreported in America. The real number of dead babies in 2007 was much higher than the already overwhelming toll of 435,480. 

Fifty-six percent of the babies killed in these reporting states were either black or hispanic. That makes abortion a racial issue all over the country. But even more so in Texas. 

The question we have to ask is whether this is by design or simply a reflection of other currents in society. I think it’s by design, in a cumulative sense. 

Baby and mother s hand black

The population control movement has been shaped by a eugenics philosophy from its start. Proponents of the movement will argue against that in public, but turn around and make statements that are entirely in keeping with it in private. I have heard these comments myself, many times. 

One thing I’ve learned in this life is that people do what they want. They may tell you that they plan to work out 2 hours a day and get in shape, but they do what they want. If they sit on the couch instead of working out, it’s because sitting on the couch is what they really want. People say all sorts of things. But they do what they want.

By the same token, people usually get what they want. 

If say you want abortion to be for all women, but your put your clinics in the poorest parts of town and seek government grants to “educate” and “provide” for those without money or people of color, then you probably want to limit the number of poor and people of color. 

Abortion is the “answer” society gives poor women and women of color for the problems it dumps on them. Other groups of women have abortions, but if you doubt that abortion is the “choice” we’re giving primarily to poor women and women of color, just look at the numbers.

People do what they want and they get what they want. The abortion industry is getting a racially targeted number of abortions that reduces the percentage of black and hispanic babies being born. 

77,152 babies died in abortions in Texas in 2009.

Just writing these words grieves me. It oppresses me and pushes me toward despair. 

77,152 lives. 

In one state. 

How can anyone read that and not be sad?

Grandfather little girl hispanic

 

  • Maggie Goff

    Rebecca, thank you for continuing to get the truth out. You are on my permanent prayer list, prayed for several times a day.

    • hamiltonr

      Thank you Maggie.

  • FW Ken

    When I started at the Austin State School 40 years ago, many of my older female clients had been forcibly sterilized. I did some reading then and learned about eugenics as an accepted government policy back in the day. Margaret Sanger was absolutely a racist, and her plan was based on eugenics.

    It is true, however, that the racial stats are not that totally skewed, at least locally.

    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

    Blacks and Hispanics make up about 50% of the population in Texas, so 63% is not that as far out of line as I first thought. Nationally, Blacks and Hispanics make up 30% of the population, so 57% means those groups are almost twice the percentage you would expect.
    It is worth noting that the abortion rights advocates seem to be white middle to upper middle class women. And I am still in mourning to learn that Cecile Richards’ mother was Ann Richards, one of the few Texas governors you could call “great”, and a fine woman to boot. She is the only politician for whom I did campaign work. That her daughter is running a mafia family is disgusting.

    • FW Ken

      I find that my stats above are incomplete. African Americans make up around 12% of the Texas population. I wonder what percentage of the 63% in Texas are black?

  • Sven2547

    Proponents of the movement will argue against that in public, but turn around and make statements that are entirely in keeping with it in private.

    Do not fall into the trap of looking at the lunatic fringe, and then assuming everone else on that side of the political divide shares that same crazy opinion.

    For example: I do not presume that you share TheodoreSeeber’s… unique views on rape and consent, and it would be nasty and dishonest of me to imply that you do.

    • hamiltonr

      Sven, I was once the NARAL Director for Oklahoma. I helped open the first abortion clinic in the state. I know whereof I speak.

      • Sven2547

        And you did NOT support eugenics when you did that, correct? Yet you think it’s fair to presume that everyone else secretly does?

        • hamiltonr

          I am speaking specifically of people I knew who were on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood International (I mean the international board) and who were leaders at the national level in the abortion rights movement.

          I did not realize that what I was supporting was eugenics but I am ashamed to say that at one point in my life I advocated aborting babies because they had birth defects. I even made speeches in which I said this.

          Once after a speech I made talking about abortion for babies with down’s syndrome, a young woman came up to me and told me her brother had down’s syndrome and that I was wrong in my thinking. That was a mini-turn-around for me. I never again advocated abortion for birth defects. However, I kept silent when others did it and didn’t speak up when people said things that were explicitly of a eugenics philosophy in meetings.

          I didn’t understand the full horror of what I had done and what I had supported until quite a time after I knew that abortion was wrong.

          The change in me is entirely due to the grace and love of God, which is why I talk about it here — to give God the glory — even though it is the worst thing I have ever done and certainly far worse than anything I ever thought I would do. It is my deepest shame.

          • FW Ken

            It’s worth remembering that the eugenics movement in the U.S. had the force of law, including the Supreme Court. Hardly a lunatic fringe.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Compulsory_sterilization

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

          • TheodoreSeeber

            Rebecca, someday I’d like to see a blog posting on your conversion experience directly. If you’ve already written it, would somebody please reply with the link?

          • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

            Picture this. A student’s room in an ancient English university town. Half a dozen undergraduates engaged in one of those everlasting debates on principles and ideas that undergraduates – I hope – always had and always will have; in this case, abortion. Myself on one side, on the other a clever and charming agnostic (!) theology student, the rest mostly listening. Among them is a seriously disabled but brilliant and popular female law student. In those days I had not yet worked out all the points that normally come up in debate, and when my opponent brought up the issue of people who would be be born only to be unhappy all their lives, I was stumped.

            It was then that the disabled law student spoke up. I remember every one of the ten words she said, which, in my memory, simply put an end to the whole debate – not only because they could not be answered, but because she did not seem to have the least idea how they would sound coming from her:

            “How do you know they are going to be unhappy?”

    • TheodoreSeeber

      I’ve recently changed my views on that, but not so much that it matters.

      I now consider rape to be purely a matter of consenting to sex.

      I also consider use of contraception as to be definite proof of a lack of consent (in that the use of contraception indicates a definite rejection of the natural purpose of sex).

      • pagansister

        Oh! Theodore, I have so much trouble attempting to figure out how RAPE is in any way done with consent! It is a act of violence. And birth control is a smart move in order to plan the number of children a couple can afford to shelter, feed and clothe. Randomly having children that a couple can’t afford demonstrates a lack of responsibility, IMO. (in this case, I’m only talking about married couples).

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Rereading that, my bad, I missed a NOT: “rape to be purely a matter of consenting to sex.” should have been “rape to be purely a matter of NOT consenting to sex.”

          Birth control is a smart move *ONLY* if you look at human life in terms of cost, rather than in terms of value. “Randomly having children that a couple can’t afford ” is a ridiculous statement to those of us who believe that one small infant with AIDS in Africa is worth more than all the material wealth of the world combined.

          • pagansister

            Thank you, Theodore, for catching your word “NOT” being in the sentence. Disregard my rebuke. :-)

            As for birth control and your reference to Africa—as precious as those little ones are—-how many of them die before they are a year old due to the circumstances in which they are born? Just asking.

            • TheodoreSeeber

              Most of them. Which, as Pope Francis recently stated, the scandal of starvation is equal to the scandal of abortion, from pro-life standards- but nobody is legally preventing us from feeding the hungry, so in a way it is worse.

              If I had a million dollars, I’d spend half of it on seed, and half of it on airplanes and helicopters to fly over the underdeveloped “African breadbasket” just scattering seed for edible food.

              You are absolutely right, that if we want to be pro-life, we can’t be discriminatory on what life we allow to survive.

              • pagansister

                If indeed hunger could be solved, what a world this would be. However, I guess that there has never been a time in human history where every one on the planet was fed and healthy, and unfortunately there may not be a time in the future either.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  Hunger is primarily a distribution problem. The obvious solution, but also the one most threatening from a use-of-personal-property-to-abuse-one’s-neighbors perspective, is wide spread edible landscaping. So widespread that nobody can prevent their neighbors from accessing it.

                  On a smaller scale (the United States) certain invasive species brought from Europe in the 1700s spread like wildfire across the continent, and gave support to many a group of settlers coming west during the 1800s (not quite enough for the Donner party, as those species died back in winter, but enough for say, the impoverished Mormons traveling west with only 300 lbs of supplies in a handcart).

                  On an even smaller scale, this was the secret wealth of the Pre-1830 Pacific Northwestern tribes that enabled them to create the four-caste system and replace war with the Potlach. They believed themselves a wealthy people (even if their taste in clothing was, shall we say, a bit primitive and slightly weather-nudist) and had lived for generations eating off of the land by encouraging edible species and causing inedible species to go extinct. Of course, until the Europeans brought Malaria.

                  Even today, when I do plant (and I’m still replanting my quarter acre slowly) I plant edible invasives and edible natives, in hopes that one day my little urban lot will be a source of emergency (and not so emergency) food for anybody who passes by.

                  • pagansister

                    I enjoyed reading your info, Theodore. Thanks. :-)

                  • Damien S.

                    It helped a lot that the PNW is Salmon Run Central, and also that it combines wet climate with a lack of freezing winters. Year-round growing season always helps. I also doubt malaria was a main problem up there; smallpox and measles were the big killers through the Americas, though malaria and yellow fever certainly turned the New World tropics into killing zones.

  • Ryan Hite

    I think that the problem is that there are so many poor people who are of color in the United States. We should start off with helping these mothers in supporting children and giving them the care they need and services they need so that they do not need to consider an abortion.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      That’s a huge part of the problem of course, above and beyond the perceived need to kill people to relieve them of poverty.

    • Bill S

      “We should start off with helping these mothers in supporting children and giving them the care they need and services they need so that they do not need to consider an abortion.”

      Does it make any difference if what you are proposing to do will likely bankrupt this country?

      • TheodoreSeeber

        “Does it make any difference if what you are proposing to do will likely bankrupt this country?”

        No. A single human life is worth more than this entire country and all of its natural resources combined.

        • Bill S

          So the country, or more specifically the states, should go bankrupt giving out welfare checks. How about not discouraging birth control if you have such a problem with abortions?

          • TheodoreSeeber

            Welfare checks, like all fiat currency, is imaginary. So is bankruptcy, for all that it is feared by your eastern elite liberals.

            Though I think we should get a bit more creative. Instead of Snap, how about a massive planting program to make sure that food grows every place people live? How about bands of feral chickens complete with legal hunting?

            Instead of universal health care, how about local health care, paid for with property taxes?

            How about requiring any property in foreclosure for more than six months be condemned and turned over to the county, to be refurbished into housing by the very homeless who need it?

            In other words, how about creating the overproduction we know we can very cheaply, and using THAT to eliminate poverty instead of cash payments?

            Nah, can’t do that, it would destroy capitalism- including the capitalist tendency to force poor people to have fewer children….

            • Damien S.

              “Instead of universal health care, how about local health care, paid for with property taxes?”

              So rich people with valuable property will continue to get better health care, as with public schools?

              Cash payments means people can get what they think they need, on the market, rather than what you think they need. Perhaps they don’t want feral chicken.

              I could get behind seizing idle property, though.

              • FW Ken

                Actually, we have universal health in my area and in most areas I know. What we don’t have is universal health insurance. As to the quality, my clients get much better care through our public system than I get through my insurance, and they only pay what they can.
                Obamacare is an abomination. We would be better off with a single payer system like Canada, although I think other means could achieve a better end. One thing that would help the discussion would be for conservatives to quit claiming that Canada’s system is a failure the people hate, and liberals quit claiming some tens of millions don’t have health care when they mean those people don’t have insurance.
                Personally, I think both sides just don’t want to have to associate with “those people” at the public hospital or have “those people” able to access their nice, insurance based clinics.

                • Damien S.

                  “Actually, we have universal health in my area and in most areas I know”

                  Oh really? Where and how?

                  US ER care is not universal health care. Yeah, they have to stabilize you or deliver your baby. They don’t have to provide preventive or chronic care or medicines or lots of other things. And uninsured ER care will bankrupt you if you weren’t already broke.

                  Obamacare is similar to the systems used in Massachusetts, Switzerland, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Japan. It’s most similar to Mass., then Switzerland, but the model of individual mandate + guaranteed issue + subsidies is widespread. Other countries require the insurers to be non-profit and set how much the premiums can be, or even actual medical prices, though.

                  I’d prefer Medicare for all myself, or even an NHS, but I’m living under Romneycare right now. Not an abomination.

                  • FW Ken

                    I don’t know what you are talking about, Damien. I’ve worked in our local ER and we took all comers. The JPS Health Network here in Tarrant County operates the premier emergency services in the area (overflow goes to Harris, which is also excellent), we have a system of local clinics that provide comprehensive services and several specialty services (cancer, women’s services are free-standing sites, the other specialties are located in the main hospital site). Dallas has a similar set-up. .

                    Smaller communities and rural areas contract with local hospitals for their needs. A friend lived in a tiny town for several years caring for his mother (Altzheimers and COPD). She had military insurance, but he didn’t. Both of their health care needs (diabetes and related ailments) were cared for in a small city 30 minutes away.

                    Medicare (combined with some parts of medicaid) for all would essential duplicate the Canadian system, which is viable, although it works well for a population about about 1/3rd more than the population of Texas. Scale would, I think, make a national single payer system problematic in the U.S. By the way, the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex has a population roughly the same as Massachusetts. You have Romneycare, we have comprehensive public systems that back up the private system.

  • Damien S.

    Going from “blacks have more abortions” to “intentional eugenics” is a pretty big leap logic, I think. Look at poverty, look at contraceptive access, look at the interaction between the two (people not living paycheck to paycheck can afford more reliable forms of contraception, like daily pills, or the upfront cost for IUDs or implants.) And I’m pulling this out of thin air, but might black men tend to be less willing to use condoms than white men? I don’t know.

    http://prospect.org/article/demographics-abortion-its-not-what-you-think

    “But extrapolating back, it’s clear that for most of the first decades after Roe, a large majority of abortion patients were white.”

    “While the discourse around abortion still focuses on scared white
    teenagers, the reality is that the typical abortion patient these days
    is a twenty-something single mother of color.”

    “But in the early 2000s, the National Center for Health Statistics found that while contraception use in American women had been climbing for decades, it stalled in the 1990s. Loss of access for poorer women seemed to be the sole reason for
    this troubling trend, which led to an explosion in unplanned pregnancy, and therefore abortion. While poor women have seen a spike, women in the middle class continued to see unplanned pregnancies decline.”

    “Today, a full 42 percent of women having abortions live under the poverty line, and another 27 percent have incomes within 200 percent of the poverty line. Taken together, 69 percent of women who have abortions are economically disadvantaged.”

    Also http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html#

    which says Catholic women have an above average abortion rate…

    • pagansister

      That last line is very interesting, considering the Church’s stand on birth control. The other stats were interesting also. I didn’t see a date on the stats—did you?

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        Birth control leads to unwanted pregnacies. No one is perfect with them. It only takes one slip up, one moment or saying the heck with it. And people using birth control have sex more often for a slip up to happen.

        • Sven2547

          Please. Birth control leads to unwanted pregnancies the same way seatbelts lead to accidents and life jackets lead to drownings.

          • FW Ken

            Except, of course, that birth control leads to a false sense of security that can engender carelessness.

            • oregon catholic

              and carelessness is enabled by knowing there is a plan b or an abortion as a backup plan if the worst happens.

          • Damien S.

            Risk compensation is a real thing, including for seat belts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
            OTOH, whether such compensation overwhelms the benefit of the safety feature is a strong claim that needs support. People having sex with birth control would have more pregnancies than those who are abstinent or sticking to e.g. oral sex, but people without birth control *don’t* stick to abstinence or oral sex, so…

            There’s also the nature of the birth control to consider. Condoms can fall off, break, or simply not get used once by a couple who say they use condoms. Daily pills can be skipped. OTOH Nexplanon and IUDs are as effective as tubal ligation (which says something about the failure rate of sterilization, I guess.) You can’t be careless with an implant.

            • FW Ken

              It’s a pretty good bet that people using contraception have more babies than people who are abstinent. :-)

              • Damien S.

                If the people actually *are* abstinent, yes. People *intending* to be abstinent have a non-zero failure rate, aka “oops we got carried away and had sex.” Well, plus rape.

          • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

            Wrong.
            Study Showed Birth Control Usage Increased Abortion Rates
            http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/16/study-showed-birth-control-usage-increased-abortion-rates/

        • pagansister

          Seriously, Manny?

      • FW Ken

        Would that be “Catholic women” who believe and practice the Faith? Who go to Mass at least on Sunday? Who go to Confession at least once a year? And more often in case of mortal sin?

        And, PS, what makes you think that women, Catholic or not, who have an abortion, would have followed the Church on contraception to start with?

        • pagansister

          All we know or assume, is that those who answered the question identified themselves as Catholic—-obviously we don’t know how “faithful” they were/are to the Church’s teachings. I have known Catholic women who used ABC, and attended Mass on a regular basis and were raising their children in the faith.

          • FW Ken

            No doubt, but I’m thinking the stats would change rather dramatically if relevant factors were considered.
            It’s interesting, Fr. Andrew Greeley, in The Catholic Identity makes the point that Catholics retain that identity more than other people. This skews the statistics when you are trying to determine what, if anything, “Catholic” means in a survey.

            • pagansister

              I tend to agree that in many cases “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” no matter the adherence to that faith. As I said above, the women identified themselves as that—Guess it might be a little like those of the Jewish faith. They may grow up and no longer attend services etc. but tend to identify as Jewish.

              • FW Ken

                “once a Catholic, always a Catholic”
                This is actually a good thing, although it makes worthless any survey that doesn’t control for actual practice. I’ve had two or three friends I didn’t even know were Catholic call for a priest at the end. Have you read or seen Brideshead Revisited? There’s a wonderful scene where the father received the priest on his deathbed. That sort of story is common among Catholics. Even if you don’t hold the Faith, I think we might agree that a happy death is more important than survey results.

        • Sus_1

          Some may be Catholic in name only but there are Catholic women who believe and practice the faith that have abortions.

      • Sus_1

        As I said on another post, it’s easier to get forgiveness from God for an abortion to get forgiveness from your congregation for bad decisions. A woman can be judged very harshly for getting pregnant when not married.

        • pagansister

          Very true—but I think right now it might be less of a stigma than it was when i was growing up—-However that might be different in the eyes of a priest.

          • FW Ken

            Have you checked that out with any priests, or just making an assumption? The priests I know would most likely be gentle, kind, and clear about sin and forgiveness. At least, that’s how they treat me and my sins.
            In fact, Catholics have always been involved in support for unwed mothers.
            Ted, my diocese has an annual Mass for babies who have died before baptism. It’s held in my parish, began as a Mass for aborted babies, but has sort of evolved into Mass for parents who lost children. It’s very beautiful. Back when our music program was stronger, we did the Faure Requiem. During the Pie Jesu, parents place red roses on the Mary altar and pray for their babies. Very nice.

            • Sus_1

              I haven’t heard of any priests condemning unwed pregnant women. I only have heard good stories. It’s a different story with some parishioners.

              We have an annual Mass for children who have died. It is very nice.

            • pagansister

              Only going by a story my daughter told me about her friend and her now husband. Both had been raised Catholic. They wished to be married by a priest, not sure whether it was his or hers—anyhow. She was pregnant—and the priest refused to marry them. They had a secular wedding—so it may be a “priestly” decision. However to counter that, another Catholic couple, also pregnant, were married by the priest in their Church—So what does that say?

              • FW Ken

                It could say that one priest is lax, the other serious about morals. It could say that they are both serious but had different standards in their dioceses.

                It could say that the situations were different. The issue isn’t pregnancy, but living together. Perhaps one couple was cohabiting, the other simply slept together, went to confession, and made an honorable choice about the baby. If the pregnancy wasn’t obvious, perhaps the couple didn’t tell.

                My brother married a Catholic after living with her for a year. They got an annulment on his first marriage, then had a Church wedding. How? Who knows? My two married nieces lived with their husbands before marriage (although the CPA had a civil marriage for tax purposes).

                All of this is just more proof of the old adage: if you don’t like organized religion, become a Catholic.

                • pagansister

                  As I mentioned above, both couples were living together, and are still married.

              • oregon catholic

                It says that many priests will not marry a couple that they think might only be getting married because she is pregnant. A marriage is meant to be a lifelong committment, made without duress, not just something to rectify an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. They usually tell them to come back after the baby is born and not to co-habit if that’s what they are doing. If they can’t do that their marriage probably wouldn’t have lasted anyway and all are better off.

                • pagansister

                  At this time, both couples are still happily married. And both couples were living together previous to marriage.

                  • FW Ken

                    Well, my “none” and cafeteria Catholic relatives are long-term married too, and at least most lived together. It’s the Baptists and pentecostals who are on second and third marriages. I went to my cousin’s funeral in a megachurch attended by wives 2 and 3 (1 was dead) and his current shack-up. It’s crazy.

                    But truth is objective, not determined by majority vote. As always, anecdotes are not the same as data. Moreover, the consequences of sin are often not visible, especially when we avert our eyes, either from a preference to not know or respect for other folks’ privacy.

            • TheodoreSeeber

              I’ve heard of this before- and I’m *very* interested in it. I was unable to get it started as a Grand Knight in the KofC, but next year I’m on the pastoral council at our Church.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Not in my congregation. Are we really that different here in Oregon? Every year on Mother’s Day we sell carnations for unwed mothers. My Knights Council is very active in raising money for PRC, Mother and Child Education Center, and Fr. Taffe Homes for Unwed Mothers. We also support Yolanda House home for battered women and children. You can bet we’re not going to let a woman who decides to keep her child go without support- or not be welcomed in our congregations.

          • Sus_1

            I have the same kind of congregation Ted or we wouldn’t be there. There are some members of the congregation that don’t have the same philosophy and want to condemn and punish. It can be very different in other dioceses.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      Doesn’t that just lead right back to the “We hate poor people, especially poor black people, so we’d better make sure fewer of them are born”?

      Contraception or abortion, the solution to poverty isn’t “fewer poor people” it is “more sharing”.

      • Damien S.

        Is the only motive you can imagine for giving contraception to poor people a hatred of poor people?

      • UWIR

        But fewer black people are not being born. There are now more black people today than in 1973, both in absolute numbers and in percentage of the population. Just because you are obsessed with having as many kids as possible, does not mean that you can evaluate other people’s motives through that worldview. If you want to evaluate someone’s motives, you need to use their value system, not yours. If someone doesn’t think that having as many kids as possible is good, then them promoting birth control is not an act of malice.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          And what has happened in the last 50 years? People live longer.

          60% of black children do not escape from their mother’s womb.

          “If someone doesn’t think that having as many kids as possible is good” Is the problem. Directly.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    I read and it left me sad. What a pitiful lack of values in the world. What evil abounds. Such blood on our hands, and “our” refers to society inclusive of all.

  • pagansister

    Thank you! :-)

  • FW Ken

    In the meantime, the American people aren’t wild about late-term abortions:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/abortion-poll_n_3575551.html

  • FW Ken

    That’s pretty much what BillS said above.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      Exactly. supposedly we need all of this birth control to keep from bankrupting the country. I think they forget that poor people often pay taxes too.

  • Damien S.

    Uh, no, not every place in the world had as abundant food supplies. Deserts? Tundra? Semi-arid plains?

    It’s true that before agriculture and farmers taking over all the good land, hunter-gatherers would have largely lived in better conditions than the marginal survivors (jungle, desert, ice) today would lead us to think, and the PNW is a glimpse of that.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      Ask the natives of those places. The tundra is amazingly productive, so are most deserts. Semi Arid plains are as well. It’s just a matter of using modern science to pick the right things to plant; and the place to ask are those very hunter-gatherers.

  • Damien S.

    How about “I like having birth control, I think it’s a great thing for women, I want to make sure my poorer sisters also have access to birth control”? You can’t imagine that? Birth control is not some nefarious plot, it’s something women see as desirable and empowering for themselves, and as such something they can want to share with other women.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      No, I can’t imagine that. I give human beings, individual human beings, far more value than that. To me, adopting that attitude is nothing short of racist suicide. That any women see it as desirable and empowering means they’ve lost sight of the most empowering thing *any* human being can become: a parent.

      There is no greater vocation available to our species. No greater good to be done than to become a parent.

      I’ll admit to spiritual parenthood in celibacy being an equal good. But women poisoning themselves to make themselves more sexually available to men without allowing the men to become fathers? That’s downright evil.

      • Brutus

        Do you really believe that directly making more people is the only good thing that can be done?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X