I am vehemently pro-choice. Strike that – I am vehemently pro-abortion, as I would prefer not to adhere to euphemisms when discussing what is, at bottom, the cessation of human life, even that of a fetus. In fact, I am so radical in my ideological position that had I the power and authority, I would allow retroactive abortions, up to and including the eighteenth year of life. The reasons are simple: if parents can terminate existence based on retardation, physical deformity, or merely an unfortunate eye color, then it stands to reason that parents can end the lives of those children who have failed to measure up to their early promise or simply won’t find their own apartment. As such, I am not in favor of child abuse, as it usually involves drunkenness and continuous attention, while homicide – quick, decisive, and final – eliminates the problem without further delay. If you despise your child (and I firmly believe that when others aren’t looking, most do), you should be afforded the opportunity to start anew without the guilt associated with abandonment. All of this pretext is necessary, therefore, to discuss the recent decision by President George W. Bush to sign a bill that bans all so-called “partial-birth abortions.”

I have no doubt that the courts will strike down this legislation as un-Constitutional as they have already spoken about this issue concerning a Nebraska law a few years back. Because the language of the law is vague and does not allow for exceptions when the life of the mother is at stake, the courts will rightly determine that this is a thinly veiled attempt to take a substantial chunk from the Roe edifice that protects a woman’s right to end her pregnancy. After all, what purpose could there be to declare “illegal” that which is extremely rare to begin with and in almost all cases does involve the health of the mother? It is a test case, like so many others by the Right, to gauge the public’s attitude and proceed with further curbs on civil liberties and matters of privacy. But all of this avoids what is being discussed in less sensitive circles, which is how I began this diatribe. A mother can, and should, feel confident at every stage of the game that she can remove her child from the planet if he or she becomes an inconvenience. Such extreme philosophical posturing speaks to my fundamental belief that children – in all cases and at all times – are inferior to adults. In a country that rattles on endlessly about “the children,” I would prefer to once again secure this nation for rational, even-tempered adults, which of course gets into another issue altogether, that of selective breeding, eugenics, and the resurrection of the Gulag to deal with the majority of those residing in the Red States. At this moment, I speak only of the young ones, and how the law should never elevate their needs or desires above those of grown-ups.


This recent bill is similar to the Bush crowd’s extension of health care protection to the unborn fetus. How interesting it is that conservatives are stone-faced and cruelly silent in the face of 40 million adults without adequate health care, yet they cannot sleep nights thinking about the yet-to-be-born and their fragile health. But again, Bush supported this policy because it is his desire to define the unborn as citizens deserving of full Constitutional protection, which would set original intent on its ear; another fact that doesn’t seem to trouble the usually rigid strict constructionists. If equal protection extends to a fetus, there is literally no end to this madness, and it is not long before women are rounded up in the fashion of The Handmaid’s Tale and “protected” (i.e. watched) until the healthy babes are brought into the world. How is this any different from agents of the state seizing a visibly pregnant woman caught ingesting a potentially harmful substance and keeping her from inflicting any further damage? To have this as a guiding principle in a society suggests that it is of primary importance that healthy women bring strong, equally healthy fetuses to term and deliver them to the greater society as willing participants in the world of nazism consumerism.

All of this rhetoric regarding the “best interests of the children” might resonate even in my blackened heart if conservatives cared a whit about the little shits once they left the womb. As long as they acquire the necessary skills to be economically relevant, they are seen as successful and complete and anything else is either dismissed or held in blatant contempt. Shop, don’t think, wee one. There is a reason, dear readers, why almost all members of the pro-life movement are men, and more than that, trashy, uneducated men – they wish to control procreation to such an extent that their kind be allowed to continue what nature left to its own devices would see fit to exterminate. A raw state of nature would have long ago eliminated, for example, the slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging Appalachian, but our “enlightened” thinkers have created a body of laws that protect such evolutionary mistakes in their quest to breed. Because most women would willingly choose to exterminate the progeny of these moronic beasts, it is vital for the yokel that such laws be passed that force the unwilling to pump out the future of bingo/banjo-playing America.

Therefore, it is not cruel, nor is it illegal, to end one’s pregnancy at any time and for any reason. If the majority of us (who, incidentally, are not suited – either by temperament or intelligence, emotional stability or simple financial security) are allowed to bring children into the world without any attention paid to the social costs, then why does that same state have the right to bring about a child that is not desired? Of course, I would rather have the state prevent childbirth in certain circumstances than mandate it, but we must strive at the very least for consistency. Either the state can control it all, or it must retreat in all cases, allowing individuals the ultimate decision. In this way, the state must furnish the best of all possible worlds for those who have made either choice, and this encompasses free pre-natal care and hospital visits for those choosing birth, and free, unencumbered facilities for those who choose abortion. To favor one over the other is to take a position that belies the fundamental principal of our nation – individual autonomy and security in matters of a private nature.

But all of this is beside the point. We are literally choking on the bile and vomit of mankind and I am steadfastly opposed to any and all attempts to bring one more life to term. If you need a child, why not select from one of millions around the world who are systematically raped, enslaved, and starved, and all of whom are – and this is important – already here? We need to pause, take a break, and consider what humanity hath wrought. This shit must cease. Let me end with a quote from Blade Runner, adding a key word of my own: “I want no more life.”

About Matt

Matt is the site’s Longest Serving Critic and chief misanthrope. He divides his time between classics of cinema and the most ridiculous movies he can find on Redbox.
Follow Matt: @mattcale52