Feminist Decides to Abort Her Son Solely Because He is Male

... when I say that feminism is about eliminating males from the human race. I am not kidding that that is what it is about: Female supremacy with the aim of eradication of males from humanity by whatever means is expedient.

The MRM is as the Allies against the Axis, specifically Nazi Germany, during WWII. Our aim must be absolute victory over feminism, to destroy it and not let it rise again, as has been the aim to stop the re-rise of the equally murderously insane hate-filled ideology of the NSDAP of Germany. Men are to feminists what Jews, Romani (so-called "Gypsies"), Poles, etc., were to the Nazis: inferior beings ("untermenschen") to be used or destroyed as the superior ones ("ubermenschen") saw fit. The Nazis actually succeeded in getting some among their victims to believe their propaganda and work against people like them: fellow Jews, Poles, etc. They did this with their incessant anti-Jew, etc., propaganda. Likewise, feminists have succeeded at turning some men into the same kind of people who used to assist the Nazis in prison labor or the death camps manage and murder their fellow Jews, Poles, etc. Today, male feminists do the same kind of thing but at the moment, only ideologically.

The only thing stopping feminists from pursuing a "final solution" against men is that they do not have the means to do so. But if they did, they sure would. And as soon as they can come up with one, they will. My guess is it'll be in the form of some kind of mass genetic tampering; some time in future, maybe 100 years hence, they will take technology developed for medical purposes (nanites that can make DNA-level repairs to cells, for example, or chemicals that have DNA-level effects of some kind) and turn them loose on the human population. It could, like the Stuxnet computer worm, be designed to go after the DNA of men, killing them before anyone realizes what the hell is happening. Sound crazy? Paranoid? Far-fetched?

Not at all. If I had told you 50 years ago the tech'y would exist to record every phone conversation, email, and track every piece of mail sent by US Mail or private company in the US, aggregate and analyze it, store it and make it available for further analysis and review at any time in the future, and that the US would be doing so to its own citizens, you'd say I was nuts, a conspiracy kook, or worse. Well, that tech'y exists and is now in use today, and being used by the US gov't in exactly that way. Consider this also: the first web browser was released about 20 years ago by the U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Did you or anyone else immediately imagine that the Internet would become as significant as it is today quite this fast? No one, not even the US gov't, thought it'd explode so fast.

Think nanites or highly-targeted DNA-influencing chemicals that can be spread readily throughout the world is too far off? Think being able to secure same is going to be possible? Think well-moneyed, hateful ideologues like feminists will think twice about using such tech'y if they can do so to rid the world of male humans, esp. if alt. ways of creating new humans (females only, of course) are known (which I predict, they will be, even if human evolution will then grind to a standstill: three-parent humans are already possible)? Oh, yes.

Feminism is a genocidal hate movement and must be treated as such.

I'm not really sure I believe this to be a true story. It just seems too fake. I went to the "injustice stories" site. I'm not sure if submitted stories are supposed to be true or if they are just supposed to be thought provoking. (and of course no one would lie on the internet)

But, if it is true, this is what you get when society allows abortion for any reason. You get just that, abortion for ANY reason.

http://injusticestories.com/i-aborted-my-baby-because-it-was-a-boy/

To avoid the extortionate 'Click "Like" button' barrier, you can read the entire article here without that problem.

Further, looks like the site admin decided to "hire" Lana (if that's her real name) as a permanent contributor. Read it here.

It is the story of an injustice--done to the unborn child.

The gal who aborted the child can't believe some people want her dead--just as she clearly and unmistakably wanted her own child dead. She apparently has never heard of karma--that what you put out comes back.

And she complains about the type of people patriarchy produces--but if she's an example of what feminism produces, I'll take patriarchy any day. Mother Teresa was supposedly an example of a patriarchal woman. Mother Teresa or this nutcase--hm. Nothing to think about.

Hopefully this is just a made-up story--but it reveals a lot about the mentality of some people. Hopefully, just a few--but I suspect their number is growing.

And, Matt, if the feminists get rid of all men, who will they blame for all their problems? Oh, wait--they'll blame men for being dead? Fred Reed says, without men, civilization will last until the oil needs changing. In fact, without men, there will be no oil to change. Feminists want only the best jobs--which doesn't include drilling oil in some frozen Arctic wasteland.

Cause and effect is lost on irrational people. Ideologues are by definition irrational. And, feminism has been shown to be an ideology. You know you are dealing with an ideology when the interpretation of fact is at odds with clear and convincing evidence, and/or when facts are subjected to multiple simultaneous and contradictory interpretations in the course of supporting the ideology's asserted belief system, as standards around "clear and convincing" are themselves subject to debate. Most people, including legal and scientific types, use Occam's Razor, if not explicitly called such, as a means of keeping oneself or others from going off into la-la land. It's a way of making sure your imagination isn't running away with you. That tapping noise on your window may well be an evil spirit coming to take you away in the dark of night... arrgghh!!!... or it may be that overgrown branch you have been avoiding dealing with finally h@ving its revenge by partnering with the fall wind and scaring the bejeezus out of you. Given that evil spirits and their choice of how to scare people silly is a rather hard set of assumptions to be reasonably certain about while the physical behavior of semi-fixed, suspended objects that are moveable by fall seasonal winds near your window are far more predictable, chances are, it's the damned branch. Now open the window, snap the end of it off, and reach out there with the pruning shears in the AM and finish the job then.

Feminists see something like a man sitting on a subway late at night with 5 other people on it. He is in the corner of the subway on a seat too small to hold the behind of a Victoria's Secret model, much less a 6' 2" former first string power forward on his college basketball team, and so he stretches out onto the surrounding unoccupied (and unlikely to be so any time soon) so-called "seats" next to him. To a feminist, this isn't mere "man-spreading". Oh, no. And it sure isn't "Hey, I got the room, may as well use it!" Oh no, nothing so innocent. This is a pure, unadulterated, inexcusable expression of MALE PRIVILEGE rooted in PATRIARCHAL OPPRESSION of women (and children too, by the way), and if he's a white guy, well, throw non-whites into the mix, too! If he's straight, he's also oppressing gay people, too! Hell, he eats kittens for breakfast! But there can be no doubt that first and foremost, this is clearly an expression of oppression... of privilege... of crass, unmitigated arrogance, the kind only truly displayable by those with nothing but abject contempt for anyone not like them. In short, he's a M-A-N.

So yeah, I suppose you could look at it that way. But the first interpretation is more likely. Unless you're a feminist, in which case, such an interpretation is only available when examining females' behavior (which should not be examined, anyway).

As for this one case, she decided that because she was giving birth to a male infant, he would ipso facto be an oppressor or female-kind and likely to be any number of other things: rapist (of course), murderer, etc. (Guess she never read "The World According To Garp" to see that yes, a feminist can have a son and raise him and gee, he will not turn out to be any of those things... surprise!). In short, she ideologued, anti-Occam's-Razor'ed her way into a decision that she wouldn't've made had the fetus been female. She said she was ready to have the baby and wanted it, until she found out the fetus was male. (Notice of course she refers to the father of the child as the "donater", knew who he *likely* was, but made no mention of telling him about her pregnancy or decision to abort, for that matter -- but she's a feminist, why would anyone expect her to? -- unless she wanted child support from him, of course.)

This is how ideologues roll. They're 'toopid. It's too bad so many others must pay for their 'toopidity, both today and throughout history.

I'm siding on it being an inflammatory trolling article. Maybe someone out there has done this, but it hits on too many bullet points to seem genuine to me.

One reason I favor reproductive rights for men--including the right to say no to a woman's decision to make him a father--is that it gives men a card they can play. If men cannot be forced into financially supporting a system from which they do not benefit, the system might change to benefit men. As long as the system can take what it will from men and men can do nothing to fight the system, the system will continue unabated. In theory, the courts should give men a way to fight back--but the courts are at the heart of the system that denies men their rights.

The other option is the bullet option. Men bear arms against a sea of troubles and, by opposing, end them. We're not there yet, but we will get there eventually if things don't change.

IMO, giving men a free opt out of parenthood, gives men benefit w/o any responsibility. It is so much benefit that I cant imagine any guy not choosing it, even if he purposely did not use birth control or even if he told his female partner he would be an active father, even if plans on being a father to the child at some point. Heck even if he lives in the same home as the child and acts like a father, he could still not have any financial responsibility if he opts out. I doubt most of society would say this is OK.. The biological goal of any creature is to live and keep living. We do this by passing on our genes. So I disagree with the statement that men do not get any benefit by reproducing - the benefit is survival of their genes. Most men who are not active fathers during the younger years, re-connect and enjoy their older children and grandchildren. They got to bypass all the work (children are like an investment, the work is in the early years and the payoff is in the end).

However, I would agree that we need to level the playing field for unplanned pregnancies. I advocate for both parents caring for children or fathers getting full custody if co-parenting is not an option, or arrangements that do not involve financial child support. There needs to be more risk of mothers loosing custody and paying out child support in accidental pregnancies. This would reduce both genders ability to trick the other into parenthood and neither would have an unfair advantage.

what Snopes says about "Lana's" abortion story.....
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/abortedboy.asp