Women Don’t Have the Right to Choose

Rum & Times
12 min readDec 13, 2021


Mason Meadows

Pentecostalism Correspondent

The decision whether or not to bring a child into the world, and who or who not with, goes beyond individual ‘preference.’

Last year, the New York City press put out an article titled “Should I Think About Racism When Considering a Sperm Donor?”. . .

which was written as a letter by a Jewish woman who said: “I am an American, Ashkenazi Jewish woman. I am considering bearing children as a single mother, and sorting through sperm donors by racism, eye colour, and so on. If I choose a non-‘White’ donor, am I condemning the child to be born into a system not designed for them? Or can I use my ‘Whiteness’ to help them in that system? Would such a child feel separated from their heritage with me as their mother? If I choose a ‘White’ donor, am I a racist choosing traits are “desirable” or taking the “easy road” in knowing my child will look more like me? — — Name Withheld

What this question demonstrates is the pervasive racism in the definition of America. America is a fundamentally racist country, in ways you wouldn’t even imagine.

But the reason America is fundamentally racist is because the American people are. Complaints about ‘systemic racism’ are useless. If there were no racists in the United States, not only would racist provisions in the system be defunct because no one would ever use them, but people would hurry up to get them out. Racism was woven into the fabric of American life by the American racists who want it. That is why swatting down racists is so important, regardless if they claim a distorted trojan of ‘free speech’ as a vector of hatred.

What is a government but a reflection of a group of people?

The publishers responded to the above letter by contacting a British New York University professor who responded that it was strange to consider not being born a European to be a hinderance, especially coming from a Jewish woman who, despite her self-claims to otherwise, is not structurally of European descent herself.

It then goes into the question of, is there a specifically racist culture in America that needs to be considered. Unfortunately, the response then went easy on the questioner, hailed Obama’s existence as the solution to all racism on American landscapes, and then praised the questioner for her extremely racist question — because she was willing to ask.

The article then went on to suggest that the real suffering from racism isn’t the victims of racism, but the racists, because the racists have so much to consider when they weigh their little fantasies of racism in their little lobotomised minds.

After all, the contributor accounts, the racist has to consider how to, and whether or not, to weigh their prejudice and hatred when it comes to their decisions. The racist has to make the hard decision of whether harming, killing, or robbing someone they wrongfully hate and consider to be lesser than them is actually worth it.

There are some big freaking problems with this article.

First is the extremely racist viewpoint of the questioner, framed disingenuously in the form of a question. She is asking permission to say, ‘As a Jewish woman, I want to be able to erase my Jewish heritage in favour of European children by a nameless Euro man, without having the baggage of inferior ethnicities, or the baggage of being an admitted racist. Please absolve me of this — — Name Withheld.

All available evidence suggests that, if there is an inferior ethnicity, it would be the Europeans. Why else can they not deal with racism in their stupid heads — a problem which they invented by the way — and a problem which they infected the rest of the world with, through sustained genocide (key word being sustained). When China was the biggest country in the world, they built the Great Wall. When Persia was the biggest country in the world, they built trade routes. When England became the biggest country in the world, they built colonial concentration camps with cruelty like which the world had never seen over its 10,000 year history. A prehistoric barbarian would disembowel you for your stuff, but he wouldn’t call you sub-human before he did it, or suggest your children were “condemned” for being minorities — Leave that to the Americans.

There’s a reason that writer’s name is anonymous. And there’s a reason it was published anyways, to absolute no journalistic standard whatsoever. Woman who go to donors are racists. There’s no coaching that fact. Women who say they want to choose the appearance of their child, not on attractiveness, or build, or availability, but solely on racist concepts such as “heritage,” “skin tone,” and “eyes,” is extremely racist. Those don’t matter at all, and those “traits” have absolutely nothing to do with parentage anyways, but are a racist social currency of dogwhistle words.

Children have no heritage, because they have no culture, have no beliefs, and have no history — they didn’t even exist but for a moment ago.

The racism of reproduction is exactly the same as genocide, but a genocide through choice. Every single major dating website or phone application in the United States filters users in to racist categories, and excludes all of them while promoting Europeans, and market the European users to everyone (both promoted and excluded) as the main force of their userbase. What that means is racists want to see how many other racists are on their platform, while cutting out everyone else, and still selling themselves to the people they cut out.

Companies like Match and Bumble do it explicitly, adding a racist exclusion filter, while Tinder and its knockoffs leave the racist segregation to users, which are demonstrated in statistics that nearly all Tinder users are racist and behave in a racist way, looking at the rates and identifiers of user behaviours and how they “swipe.”

A sperm bank is exactly the same, but rather than at the point of sex, the preemptive genocide comes at the point of pregnancy, with women selecting men from booklets listing racist categories about them, so the women can decide (choose) who to neuter and who to promulgate in their dirty, unwanted wombs.

Is genocide, or preemptive genocide, the correct term. Yes. What is the difference from killing a group of people and preventing them from being born? What is the difference of making that choice for your own life and for the lives of others? Women telling themselves it’s okay to be racist about their children because the choice has to do with childbirth, is like saying they are okay to be a racist period, and that so long as other people don’t get a say they feel alright about it. But childbirth and sexual activity are not “self-involved” activities, because they require a group of people to facilitate, a society to support, and effect an entire population.

Having a child is not a personal decision, and regardless, childbirth is not an acceptable clause of exception for being a racist period.

The women are racist because they are using racism as their primary consideration factor. Full stop. End of. Asking the question, “Is it a form of damnation to give birth to a non-‘White’,” as the Jewish woman writing the local papers did, is just as racist as to say, “All non-‘Whites’ live inferior and hellish lives, and it is the right thing to eliminate them?

What the woman is asking is if ethnic euthanasia is somehow different or worse than ethnic eugenics, and they’re both genocide.

And to the point of genocide, sperm banks, as they’re called, commercial centres where unwanted women go to impregnate themselves with stock male sperm, were brought into being by Nazi eugenic programs.

Actually, eugenics was a bigger problem in Segregationist America than in Nazi German or Apartheid South Africa, but Americans like to call racist things that they started “Nazi,” to somehow blame the Germans for a genocidal tactic that they invented and popularised.

Sperm donations were used for a long time, but the practice of going to a room and selecting a sperm sample from a booklet that listed ‘hair-type,’ ‘skin-tone,’ ‘perceived-ethnicity,’ and ‘personal histories’ goes to a eugenics Nazi-like program started in California, USA, where women were planned to be inseminated with the select sperm of racist, European, “Aryans” with significant educational and financial backgrounds.

So, the irony sets in when a self-proclaimed Jewish woman from New York asks if it’s okay for her to participate in a Nazi eugenics program from California with deep connexions to the genocide of innocent people in the United States, and genocide of the Jewish people in Europe, all because she thinks, quote, she can “use her ‘Whiteness’ to change that system.” That ugly, rejected heifer will change nothing — only exemplify what it was put there to do.

You have a Jewish woman who wants to consider weeding out minorities from the gene pool because she feels they “will have a diminished experience” or “won’t fit in” and is at the same time entirely unconcerned about eliminating her own progeny by giving herself up to a system that was built to ‘exterminate’ her. It couldn’t even be said she didn’t know it, because she did know it, and she wouldn’t admit it, and that’s why she was so conflicted enough to write a godforsaken racist letter hoping someone else would validate that self-hating, minority-hating, racist fear inside her.

Nevermind the fact that the woman considers herself “Jewish,” but she is actually just a racist. Is she Jewish or not? Notice how she calls herself Jewish when she wants to sound not racist, but calls herself European when she starts spouting racist shit about how she wants to pick a racist ‘designer baby.’ What a knob.

That woman has no right to choose who she has a child with, unless she can actually go out into the world and actually find some dirtbag desperate enough to knock her up.

Or does she? What are “reproductive rights” anyways? How do they traverse racism, if Americans are intensively racist in all the things they do? How is that problem dealt with, or the behaviours stopped?

Americans need to have some options taken away from them. Not rights taken away — unless Americans feel they have a right to be racist, which they do not. Banning all non-double-blind dating apps. Banning sperm bank catalogues. If people can’t discriminate in the workplace, they shouldn’t be enabled to discriminate at home.

Racism cannot be enforced. Affirmative action is racism. In fact, almost all affirmative action in the United States was always given, and still is, given to the racists — the racists somehow turned the term on itself with buzzwords and lies about the truth of segregation. Racism has to be eliminated from the system, which means eliminating the choice to be a racist.

People already don’t have the choice to be a murderer, or an embezzler, or even generally disruptive. They cannot have the choice to be a racist, and they cannot have the choice to be complicit in genocide.

Racism is hiding behind a lie; A lie of women, a lie of feminism, a lie of abortion. Abortion, too, was used as a tool of genocide against minorities in the United States: an extension of the same problem with eugenics.

However, why do women have the “right to choose” abortion, merely because they become pregnant for less than a year, however men do not have the “right to choose” abandonment of the child, who they would become responsible for — to equal, or perhaps greater consequence than the woman — for the child’s entire life?

And to that point, women already cannot choose to abandon a born child, except through adoption, which is the only loophole available to unwanting men, however it is an option controlled by the woman. The right to abandon a pregnant woman has almost nothing to do with the child, in that sense, it is in fact the right of a man to abandon the woman herself — and that right does not exist.

Men are obligated to the woman who becomes pregnant, in a way the woman is not obligated if abortion allows that woman an exception which is not currently or equally available to the man.

To put that another way, in a world of ‘mail-order abortions,’ parental obligation falls entirely on a man. The woman can leave at any time she wants, even if it kills the child during a certain regulated time period, but a man cannot go through the adoption service and cannot nominate the woman as a single parent unless meeting a number of strenuous tasks for approval — any one of which can be unilaterally vetoed by the woman.

The solution to that problem is either to allow men to opt out of parenthood in unplanned pregnancies, or to allow a man to veto an abortion by a woman. Currently the government strictly ties potentially unwilling men to women and the woman’s children, however does not immediately tie the child to that woman, nor does it generally tie the woman the man.

Men must be released from that affliction as a point of practicality and compassion. And further than that, is the general solution to have more children be abandoned or deleted by both parents, or to have less children suffer at all? Parental obligation is an obligation on women, in equal regard that it is to men.

The current imbalance not only has a coincidence with racism — arguments that only ‘certain people’ can impregnate ‘certain women’ — but it creates a sexist imbalance that empowers women to abuse men and sink their claws into them, based on the faulty idea of another sexist assumption that women are incapable of making decisions without a man involved. That irregular quality shouldn’t be allowed to exist, and sex or gender should never be a consideration in childbirth, and is only compounded by tossing in the considerations of racists who should have no right to open their mouths on the subject.

That imbalance exists in sperm donations, where the man provides sperm, but it is entirely determined by the people operating the facility — proven racists, who make the racist questionnaires to evaluate clients — and the woman making the choice of whoever she decides is worth her, again, a woman evidently no one else wanted, or she wouldn’t be single in the first place.

Flip that around. A man cannot hire a prostitute, because that would be exploitative. However, a man can hire a surrogate, and an egg donor. He can’t pay to have sex with the woman, but he can pay to impregnate her. There’s something foul about that. Sperm and egg donations, and the issue of racism and misogyny in those for-profit industries, as well as the surrogacy one, raise deal-breaking concerns.

Adoption is still an option, but apparently no one wants to adopt, or eugenics wouldn’t still be a household practice in America.

Racist don’t get a say on whether they can be racist. America is a backward nation in many respects, and particularly in the backwardness of not recognising the obligation responsibility has to speech. The ill-conceived, ill-spirited, and ill-executed First Amendment of speech has not been adopted in any other country in the world for one simple reason, it gives a protected status to racism and hate speech. But what’s the difference between saying, for example, “Kill all Euros,” (which America wouldn’t protect) and “All Euros should be killed” (which America would protect)? If America can be pulled out of its backwardness to meet the rest of the world, it has to start with the immature denial of the sense of a clause.

If it’s morally and socially wrong to fire someone from a job for being a minority, its equally if not moreso morally and socially wrong to break-up with someone for being a minority, or to say that you wouldn’t accept a minority’s sperm donation. Racist discrimination needs to be banned. While the United States explicitly does already ban discrimination, Americans might just not have the brainpower to understand exactly what that means.

Maybe that’s why they write their local papers asking if it’s okay to be racist.

People shouldn’t have the choice to be complicit. Racism is a life-and-death sickness on America, as evidenced by the self-defeating racism of that New York Jewish woman, and her defenders in the press.

Abortion has to be restricted.

Categories other than shared interests on dating apps have to be banned.

Photographs which could be exposed to racists have to be banned.

Affirmative action for racists has to be banned.

Sperm donations have to be anonymous, and only in medically necessary situations. And if there is no such things as a ‘medical necessity’ to become pregnant by a racist, then they should be banned.

Genocide has to be banned.

Racism must be banned.

The “right to abandon” should be banned.

The Right to Choose should be banned.

Women don’t have the right to choose: What they really now have is a power imbalance (maintained by government segregation) to inflict their racism on the people they are choosing against. Women cannot be allowed to go through the government to segregate society, as that is the exact same strategy of the American racist. People can only go to the government to force people together, and create a less discriminatory environment.

Neither men nor women should have unilateral control over how a society is steered on the grounds of ethnic prejudices and personal hatreds, nor can either be allowed to have a monopoly over childrearing. Looking after children means limiting the respective “choices” of the parents, and as easy as it currently is to say that about men, it also means extending those limitations to women and abolishing any special exceptions for women when it comes to pregnancy.

The problem of fertility treatments and racist selection techniques, and abortion, don’t occupy the space of “women’s issues.” If anything, population issues are social issues, of particular interest to children — not women.

No one can choose to be a racist. No one can choose to be a bad parent.

Women don’t have the right to choose.



Rum & Times

~ ~ Constructing a more perfect rum ~ ~