And I need you to understand how abortion was manufactured as a religious talking point; if you go back to the 1950s, the church would not know what the Hell you’re talking about 🤓 normalizing eugenics is eugenics, I study neurolinguistic programming too damn much to let this shit slide; terminating a pregnancy just to brag about how you’re immediately going to Try for “a normal one“ is the sort of comically evil bullshit that we used to say didn’t happen because Republicans would bring it up as a talking point, and then, when it does happen and people are gleefully enjoying the thought of disabled people being eradicated, that’s what we need to slow down on judging, that’s what we need to “reflect on” — no, the reason why you’re feeling so weird about it is because it’s fucking weird, the reason why you’re feeling so uncomfortable about it is because that’s not the fucking point, encouraging eugenics is not the fucking point, pretending like the issue is anything more than encouraging eugenics rather than having an abortion is disingenuous at best, especially when you have people who are genuinely convincing themselves that nothing is eugenics unless it’s race based, as if eugenics didn’t literally start with dog breeding and selecting to make sure that the animal didn’t have any physical deformities 😤
Reflecting on the connection between abortion and eugenics reveals how complex and sensitive this topic truly is. From personal observations, many people don’t realize that the framing of abortion as a religious or moral issue was largely shaped after the 1950s. Before that time, mainstream religious institutions rarely engaged with abortion debates in the way they do now. This historical context is crucial to understanding current discussions. Moreover, the discussion on eugenics often centers on selectivity based on race or genetics, but it’s important to remember that eugenics began with practices such as dog breeding — selecting for desirable physical traits and excluding deformities. This analogy helps clarify why terminating a pregnancy with the intent of avoiding disabilities can be seen as a form of modern eugenics. Sharing from my experience studying neurolinguistic programming, language shapes how these issues are perceived. When people casually say they’ll 'try for a normal one' after terminating a pregnancy due to fetal disabilities, it normalizes a mindset that can devalue the lives of disabled individuals. This kind of language use needs critical examination because it can silence ethical concerns around selective abortion. Furthermore, the political exploitation of these topics often complicates genuine reflection. For example, accusations that only certain groups promote eugenics-related abortion narratives ignore the wider cultural and ethical implications beyond party lines. Participants on all sides should aim for thoughtful discussion rather than purity politics or blame. Understanding these nuances encourages us to slow down judgment and reflect more deeply on what we mean by terms like 'normal' and the ethical boundaries of reproductive choices. It invites us to be more empathetic and informed in conversations about disability rights, abortion policies, and the history of eugenics.