Kenn's Laws | | REAL Black History | Kenn's Essays | History & Archaeology | Weather

Why Racism is Wrong | Why White Supremacy is Wrong | Why Antisemitism Is Wrong

MUST READ ► My Horrific Experience With A Psychopath

August 21, 2012


Ever wonder why we cloak baby killing with a sanitized term like abortion?

After all, when a pregnant woman undergoes a c-section procedure, the pregnancy is aborted. The purpose of the c-section is to preserve and protect the life of the infant. The same is true of induced labor. The objective is to abort the pregnancy, not to kill the baby.

Snuffing out the life of a prenatal human will certainly abort the pregnancy, but it simultaneously aborts the life of the child.

Apart from natural child birth, many procedures could be termed "abortions" because they abort pregnancies. In these cases abortions of pregnancies are preferred because they save the lives of the children, not destroy them.

There needs to be a distinction between life-saving pregnancy abortions and life-taking pregnancy abortions.

But I don't suppose the term baby killing with ever catch on.

Like this story?
Help Kenn spread the word by clicking it onto Facebook. See icon below . . .

Permission is granted to use the material in this article providing (1) the byline is included in an obvious manner crediting as the author, (2) a link to this page is included and (3) no changes are made either by deletion, addition or annotation. Original compositions at are sometimes seeded with decoy data, such as hidden acronyms, to detect unauthorized use and plagiarism.

COMMENTS: The use of vulgarities and pejoratives may result in your comment being zapped.


  1. It's interesting how liberals constantly complain that they are the minority, yet don't realize their policies literally kill potential democrats/progressives/socialists.

  2. I raise talipia fish. Great source of food for me and my family. However, they are prolific breeders. I regularly have to cull the babies. Some stay around to provide us with food but most end up in the compost heap. They're good fertilizer too. I'd love to raise them all, really I would, but my resources to do so are limited. Now, some people might suggest that I take out a second mortgage on my property to be able to afford to expand the operation so I could raise all the little fry. And that would sustain a fish population explosion for a little while. Again, they are prolific breeders. I could continue the cycle of borrowing money, expanding, borrowing money, expanding for just so long. By then I'd have more fish than I could ever eat. The excess would have no purpose, would drain my resources and become a huge burden that I could never overcome. Meanwhile, I'd have to feed the extras while providing them a place to live, do nothing, keep breeding. Now, when we have a female fish, and we can catch it before she becomes a mommy, we nip the whole problem right in the bud. Sometimes there are just too damned many useless breeders for us to take care of. Sometimes a preemptive measure is necessary for the greater good, and in this case it's the greater good of fiscal responsibility for my household. I think the government should raise some talipia.