Skip to content

Abortion, Slavery, and The Holocaust

June 11, 2009

I have been meaning to write for some time on what has become a staple of pro-life discourse – the comparison of legalized abortion to both antebellum slavery in the Southern United States and the systematic extermination of six million Jews and millions of others deemed unworthy of life by the Nazis, the Holocaust.

I am conflicted about this comparison because on some levels it does make sense, it is accurate, and it can be used to great effect. On the most important level, however, the comparison to the Holocaust makes no sense at all, and so any comparison we make between these phenomena must not be done hastily or casually, as if it can simply be taken for granted. I myself have been guilty of this, but I have tried to correct course.

There are good reasons to compare abortion to slavery and the Holocaust. Like slave owners did explicitly, the partisans of legal abortion implicitly declare that a whole group of human beings are chattel property.

The slave-owner and the feminist both premise their own freedom on the denial of any whatsoever to another group. While both may at times have become a bit squeamish considering the full reality of the system they defended, both are willing to say that it is essential to a certain ‘way of life’. That initial moral unease is always washed away with certain knowledge that the group being exploited – or done away with – is something less than human, beings that are less valuable, or of no value at all, than the group doing the exploiting. And in the end, when even those arguments fail, both succumb to the moral sloth of declaring “the law is on our side”, as if that were the only consideration that mattered.

The comparison to the Holocaust is also fitting in many ways. The proponents of abortion, and now I am no longer referring merely of ‘pro-choice’ feminists, but rather more powerful and influential groups that push for population control/reduction on a global scale through international bodies, justify abortion on the grounds that there are “lives unworthy of life”. As pro-lifers often point out, the Nazis did not exterminate the Jews first, or even the Communists or other political opponents – they began with the mentally handicapped, sterilizing them and later murdering them. A person need not share the Nazi fear of “Judeo-Bolshevism”, and all that might entail, to subscribe to the more general idea of state-sponsored eugenics. The comparison also strikes home because of the industrialization of abortion, which makes it possible for well over a million to take place in the United States alone each year.

Supporters of abortion ‘rights’ are often appalled and dismayed when they come across such comparisons. They are typically of a leftist persuasion, hailing from a tradition that has long regarded the Civil War as a progressive historical event and racism, especially Nazism, as a terrible social evil (and so do most, I might add, who are conservatives). If anyone resembles the Nazis, they might say, it is the pro-life movement, because it wants to take away a hard won freedom from women and ‘put them back in their place’.

Ultimately, however, they can only overlook the similarities between their own cause and those they disdain, and think as they do about the pro-life movement, by either ignoring or denying the humanity or the moral value of the unborn human being. More often than not, it is simply ignored as a topic unworthy of consideration. The law has spoken. It has declared that an unborn human being is not a ‘person’, therefore it must not be. Logic that they would reject out of hand when applied to groups they deem worthy of existence, they employ without hesitation to groups that threaten a status quo that they have some sort of investment or interest in. If that doesn’t resemble the slavocracy of the antebellum South, I don’t know what does.

But there are only similarities in logic, not in practice, and this must never be forgotten. There are very important differences between slavery and the Holocaust on the one hand, and legalized abortion on the other. The differences are important enough to warrant a little more caution and care when making comparisons of this sort.

I will note first that the difference between abortion and slavery is not as great as the difference between abortion and the Holocaust. The primary difference is that slavery was the systematic exploitation of a large group of people by a small group of owners. Only a small percentage of Southerners actually owned slaves, and an even smaller percentage owned many slaves. Meanwhile abortion is sought out and obtained by millions of Americans, men and women (yes men – they must always be included as customers of the abortion industry).

This is not to diminish the nature of slavery, but to point out its concentrated character. Had it not been for the ‘states rights’ dimension of the slavery debate unique to America, I question how many people would have marched off to their deaths for another man’s right to own another man. It didn’t happen in any other country I am aware of, at least in the modern era.

Being limited to such a small and obviously outmoded social caste, and losing the historical battle to a new socio-economic system, slavery was doomed to pass away. Abortion, by contrast, is practically made-to-order for the civilization of consumerism and materialism we inhabit today. I’ll have more to say on that below.

There is a greater difference between abortion and the Holocaust. The Holocaust was organized and carried out by the Nazi state. People were taken to camps against their will and murdered. Abortion, on the other hand, is something imposed upon no one in America by the state (though many abortions are indeed coerced, as I have pointed out elsewhere). Though legalized abortion itself was foisted upon Americans by a Supreme Court that went well outside its proper boundaries, it has come to gain broad acceptance in many parts of the country. A majority of Americans support greater restrictions on abortion but not an outright ban, nothing that would officially recognize the humanity of the unborn child.

I find it misguided, therefore, when pro-life conservatives make causal use of the Holocaust, especially in conjunction with rage-fueled attacks on Obama (or Clinton before him). Both focus on the state, and the state is not the proper target of our righteous anger. The state is an enabler, a facilitator, but it is not the cause. Obama has never ordered any woman to obtain an abortion. I believe him when he says he wants to reduce abortions, I just don’t think he has yet proposed any reasonable means of doing so.

The moral responsibility for abortion lies with the people themselves. In the many cases where there are coerced abortions, much of the responsibility falls not upon the woman who gets the abortion, but upon people in her life – boyfriends, husbands, parents, employers, even other children – who have a stake in her obtaining one. In my view, it falls also upon a socio-economic system that is rooted in a materialist and hedonistic philosophy, that has made it more difficult for a woman to function effectively as a mother, placing greater demands upon her as a worker and a consumer. As John Paul II argued (and I argued), the modern consumerist culture and economy plays a large role in the Culture of Death.

It is not the fault of women alone, or men alone, but a collective social failure and responsibility. To approach the state as the primary culprit is simply to do in a peculiar way what conservatives routinely accuse the liberals of, ascribing all-powerful status to the state and its power to affect society.

I do believe that it is essential that we continue to fight for the legal rights of the unborn, for restrictions on abortion, and for public assistance to needy pregnant women. But we can and ought to do so without forgetting why abortion happens. It doesn’t happen because it is legal. It is legal because the economic, social and cultural forces that make it happen became strong enough to assert themselves as law. The Supreme Court was responding to a case brought before it by radical feminists, who themselves were the spearhead of a much larger ‘sexual revolution’, which had its own more fundamental causes. There is little we can do about the fallen nature of humanity, but there is plenty we can do to reshape the socio-economic structures that serve as a foundation for the Culture of Death. That, unfortunately, is a topic for another post.

About these ads
28 Comments
  1. Mike J. permalink
    June 11, 2009 11:09 pm

    Joe,
    I agree with you by and large with this post: that the falls upon ourselves to limit abortion via a change in culture and this is where the analogies to slavery and the holocaust fall short. Unfortunately, I think you err early on when you tie feminism with abortion.

    Feminism, at its root, strives for equal dignity between men and women. The right to vote and such things as the right to safe child-birth are the stuff of feminism. Identification with the abortion industry and pro-choice policy is a late addition to some modern feminist organizations, but not, necessarily, a part of feminism itself. (Indeed, I think abortion enables men to continue to treat women with less than equal dignity while giving women a false sense of equality and power). I think painting feminism with the same strokes as pro-choice organizations misses the genuine goods that feminism seeks and can turn-off many who would otherwise be open to pro-life arguments.

    -Mike J.

  2. Joe Hargrave permalink
    June 11, 2009 11:43 pm

    Mike,

    You may have a point. If I recall correctly, the early feminists were opposed to, or at least not quite enthusiastic about, abortion.

  3. Mark Gordon permalink
    June 12, 2009 7:28 am

    From the Feminists for Life website, quotes by early feminists on abortion. Clearly, these women understood that abortion is an assault on the fundamental dignity of women and merely enables the sexual irresponsibility of men. These quotes also show that modern feminism has more in common with the sexual liberation movement from which it sprang, than with feminism per se.

    “Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!” -Susan B. Anthony

    “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” -Elizabeth Cady Stanton

    “There must be a remedy even for such a crying evil as this. But where shall it be found, at least where begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?” -Elizabeth Cady Stanton

    “Women becoming, consequently, weaker…than they ought to be…have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and sacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection…either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast if off when born. Nature in every thing demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity.” -Mary Wollstonecraft

    “The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus.” -Victoria Woodhull

    “Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.” – Alice Paul, original author of the ERA

  4. ROB permalink
    June 12, 2009 8:25 am

    You underplay the “concentrated character” of the slave owning south. Blacks owned slaves, Indians owned slaves and relatively poor as well as rich whites owned slaves. Most benefited from the slave owning economy and a great deal of white racial pride was invested in the peculiar institution. Finally, many thousands died to extend, perpetuate and defend it.

  5. Julian permalink
    June 12, 2009 8:37 am

    “Abortion, on the other hand, is something imposed upon no one in America by the state ….”

    Except the baby. (A minor detail, I suppose.)

  6. June 12, 2009 8:52 am

    Thanks for this post, it is very thoughtful. The only thing I would have a serious quibble with is that, “The slave-owner and the feminist both premise their own freedom on the denial of any whatsoever to another group. ”

    On empirical grounds, this simply cannot be the case, even in general. On deeper grounds, I think that feminism has grown into a deep and rich discourse that we cannot describe in generalities anymore. My favorite feminist, Luce Irigaray, presents a great deal of opposition to the rejection of the womb and sees it as yet another patriarchal move taken to escape the reality of motherhood. I hope you reconsider your use of the term “feminist” to capture the whole range of movements, thoughts, and actions.

    I think the general point of not assuming too much out of the many analogies that are used is a good thing. At the heart of it is this, I think: Loss of life is always uniquely tragic, there is no lump-sum way to go about talking about it with the reverence it deserves.

  7. David Nickol permalink
    June 12, 2009 9:47 am

    The law has spoken. It has declared that an unborn human being is not a ‘person’, therefore it must not be.

    American law (and the common law) has never regarded an unborn human being as a person in the first place. It is not that the law has taken away the right for the unborn to be considered persons. It is that the unborn were never considered persons in the first place. And that was true even when abortion was strictly prohibited. Roe v Wade didn’t switch the classification of the unborn from persons to nonpersons in order to permit abortion. As far as I can determine, no legal system anywhere, at any time, has recognized the unborn as persons. If anyone knows of any exceptions, I would be interested to hear of them.

  8. jeremy permalink
    June 12, 2009 10:24 am

    But there are cases where if a pregnant woman is murdered, the charge is 2 counts of murder. That is a legal acknowledgement of person hood status. I believe the high-profile Scott Peterson case in CA a few years back is one of those.

  9. David Nickol permalink
    June 12, 2009 11:50 am

    But there are cases where if a pregnant woman is murdered, the charge is 2 counts of murder. That is a legal acknowledgement of person hood status. I believe the high-profile Scott Peterson case in CA a few years back is one of those.

    jeremy,

    “Fetal rights” bills are mainly the result of the pro-life movement’s attempt to stop abortion by moving incrementally toward the recognition of the fetus as a person in all cases. These laws generally regard the fetus as a person if it is killed during a violent crime. However, they all specifically exclude abortion (which they have to, since otherwise they would be unconstitutional).

  10. Mark Gordon permalink
    June 12, 2009 12:05 pm

    These laws generally regard the fetus as a person if it is killed during a violent crime. However, they all specifically exclude abortion (which they have to, since otherwise they would be unconstitutional).

    Which accounts for the moral incoherence of such laws. Abortion is an act of lethal violence that is not mitigated by the intentions or identity of the aggressor.

  11. Mark Gordon permalink
    June 12, 2009 12:06 pm

    Sorry about the double italics above. I forgot to close them after the first paragraph, which is a quote from David Nickol’s comment.

  12. jeremy permalink
    June 12, 2009 1:12 pm

    Hi David,
    These laws generally regard the fetus as a person if it is killed during a violent crime.
    So the law does regard a fetus as a person is same cases.

    Do you know if prior to these laws, if a fetus was killed as part of a violent crime, could a charge of murder be leveled for the fetus, or would it only be the acts against the mother that would count?

  13. David Nickol permalink
    June 12, 2009 3:03 pm

    Do you know if prior to these laws, if a fetus was killed as part of a violent crime, could a charge of murder be leveled for the fetus, or would it only be the acts against the mother that would count?

    jeremy,

    I am talking off the top of my head here, but I think before the pro-life movement started pushing “fetal rights” laws, it was possible to argue that a man who killed a pregnant woman was a more reprehensible murderer than — all things being equal — a man who killed a woman who was not pregnant, and argue for a stiffer sentence if he was convicted. But I don’t believe it was ever considered two murders.

    This makes me think of the passage in Exodus 21 which some quote as Biblical evidence that a fetus isn’t a person:

    “When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman’s husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges. But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

    If there is a miscarriage, and the woman is unharmed, it’s a property crime. If there’s a miscarriage, and the woman is harmed, then it’s an eye for an eye.

    I believe when the federal version of the fetal rights bill was argued, the pro-choice people wanted to deal with the situation of a pregnant woman being murdered by making the murder of a pregnant woman a worse crime than the murder of a woman who was not pregnant, but they wanted to do it without declaring the death of the fetus to be murder. But of course the pro-life people insisted that the fetus should be considered a person, because fetal rights laws are stepping stones to getting a fetus recognized as a person in all cases.

    The same is true, in my opinion, of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that Barack Obama so famously blocked in Illinois. It was not about providing medical care to infants born alive as the result of abortions. It was about creating another situation in which a fetus could be classified as a person.

  14. jeremy permalink
    June 12, 2009 3:38 pm

    I’m also talking of the top of my head, but it seems to me that it never really came up before because abortion wasn’t the hot-topic is it now. I don’t think it was really necessary to draw a firm legal line, a man who attacked a pregnant woman was going down, one way or the other. Course, I could be wrong about that.

    However, now that abortion is not only a hot topic, but promoted a social good with no moral implications, I can see why people now feel a need to make a statement about the value of a pre-born human.

    It seems pretty clear to me that a Fetus isn’t just property – I don’t think you can create them, then sell them to the highest bidder? If you can, I think one would have little problem getting a law passed forbidding it.

  15. jeremy permalink
    June 12, 2009 3:43 pm

    The same is true, in my opinion, of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that Barack Obama so famously blocked in Illinois. It was not about providing medical care to infants born alive as the result of abortions. It was about creating another situation in which a fetus could be classified as a person.

    Not being as cynical as some, I think BAIPA could be construed as trying to find that common ground – that after the fetus has exited the birth canal, the fetus should be promoted to full fledged legal human status regardless of circumstances.

    And besides, how could that grant personhood rights to a fetus? Is it still considered a fetus when it has left the birth canal? Come to think of it, when is that magic moment when it stops being a fetus and becomes a baby?

  16. Mark Gordon permalink
    June 12, 2009 4:08 pm

    … when is that magic moment when it stops being a fetus and becomes a baby?

    When SCOTUS says so. Or when “we,” attempting to craft a “reasonable compromise,” say so. In either case, the fetus/baby has no say because he or she has no power.

  17. David Nickol permalink
    June 12, 2009 4:14 pm

    I’m also talking of the top of my head, but it seems to me that it never really came up before because abortion wasn’t the hot-topic is it now.

    But abortion was a hot topic. It was generally legal in the early United States and widely practiced. One of the major players in criminalizing it was the American Medical Association. But civil law never defined the fetus as a legal person or prosecuted abortion as murder.

  18. Joe Hargrave permalink
    June 12, 2009 4:17 pm

    Replies.

    ROB,

    I realize people benefited from the slave system, including a lot of Northern capitalists. A lot of people benefit from a lot of evil, including everyone in the West from the oppression of workers everywhere in the Third World.

    But the people doing the actual owning of other people was still a small minority. That’s a relevant point. There’s a difference between directly exploiting someone, and simply absorbing the economic benefits of it down the line. A moral difference, and necessarily a tactical difference.

    Julian,

    That glib, sarcastic remark was hardly necessary. The state does not impose abortion on the baby. The baby’s mother, possibly under the coercion of some other party, hires a man calling himself a ‘doctor’ to dispose of her unborn child. The state plays no role at all, it simply doesn’t intervene.

    The state does not order abortions – that is the relevant point. For heaven’s sake, that’s the point of the whole post. Free advice for the SATs or GREs – if you’re going to criticize something, read it carefully first.

    David N.

    “American law (and the common law) has never regarded an unborn human being as a person in the first place.”

    I don’t believe you are completely correct here. What about after the quickening? Was abortion not illegal in most states after that point on the assumption that the unborn child was then ‘alive’? Is that not de facto personhood?

    All we are doing is amending that early understanding to include the time between conception and quickening, thanks to modern technology.

  19. Joe Hargrave permalink
    June 12, 2009 4:19 pm

    And, finally…

    Sam and others on ‘feminism’:

    I’m not saying all feminists advocate abortion. But I will say that most high profile abortion advocates are feminists.

    That said, it is perhaps disruptive and unhelpful to the good work that Feminists for Life seeks to accomplish to tar feminism in such a way.

    So, for that, I do acknowledge my error. Perhaps I will amend the piece as well.

  20. David Nickol permalink
    June 12, 2009 4:36 pm

    And besides, how could that grant personhood rights to a fetus? Is it still considered a fetus when it has left the birth canal? Come to think of it, when is that magic moment when it stops being a fetus and becomes a baby?

    The situation in Illinois was that all viable fetuses born alive where protected. BAIPA was really only about fetuses that might live briefly and then inevitably die. Although there was no verified evidence (just Jill Stanek’s uncorroborated testimony) that they were being mistreated, it was at least theoretically possible that an infant born alive, with no chance of survival, could be actively killed instead of given comfort care and allowed to die a natural death. I don’t think birth certificates were always issued for such infants, so in a certain sense they were nonpersons.

    Obama believed that granting personhood to a nonviable fetus outside the womb was basically declaring nonviable fetuses persons and was in violation of Roe v Wade, and that BAIPA would just wind up in court and be declared unconstitutional. (Or at least that is my understanding of what he thought, which I got from reading the transcripts of the legislative sessions.) His position was that if these infants were being mistreated, they could pass legislation mandating proper care for them. He was just unwilling to declare them persons.

    I think Obama would maintain a fetus becomes a person when it is born alive and can survive (with the help of existing medical technology).

  21. lewiscrusade permalink
    June 13, 2009 3:20 am

    Though the comparison in reasoning is interesting. As my own pro-life focus is the eugenics aspect of all of it, the Nazi comparison is important to me. I dont’ care who’s imposing it, when you’re the person with the genetic defect or disability, it don’t matter much.
    I have had many online debates with pro-aborts whom I have Socratically reduced to admit their own eugenicist attitudes. They admit that they don’t disagree with the Nazis on the eugenics so much as that it’s *imposed*. In other words, in their view, if the Jews *volunteered* to be gassed, it would have been OK.

    Now, on the slavery thing, that is a much more important analogy, because the history is almost identical.
    One other reason is that one liberal claim, found in _Roe v. Wade_ itself, is that most laws outlawing abortion were only passed in the mid-19th century.
    Who passed them?
    The Abolitionists.
    The original Evangelical political movement focused on several moral issues: slavery, public dancing, alcohol and abortion. The Whig Party was an uneasy alliance of Evangelical voters with rich Northern bankers and industrialists who funded the party and ran it. THe Industrialists really ran the party but used the moral rhetoric to win the Evangelical voters.
    Meanwhile, the Democrats of the 1840s and 1850s when around saying, “The Whigs want to establish a theocracy!”
    Then the Whigs had their spotlight: Presidency and both houses. Everyone knoew they were elected to outlaw slavery, and _Dred Scott_ happened. The Whigs did nothing to outlaw slavery, but all their actions while in power served the Northern elites.
    So the Whig party collapsed. The Democrats got control of all three “Houses”, and ran the country for 8 years or so. The Industrialists eventually found their way into the Democrats. The Evangelicals founded their own party, the GOP, and the Democrats were so powerful that they split into two parties the 1860 election. Lincoln won in a two way split.
    I’ve long expected that’s how the abortion issue would be settled: when both current parties implode and a new pro-life third party rises in its place.

    I predicted in the early Bush administration that he’d prove to be a loser and finally inspire pro-lifers to leave the GOP, getting replaced by a Democrat landslide. Now we’ve had the Democrat landslide.

  22. Kevin permalink
    June 13, 2009 8:29 am

    David,

    I guess I will never understand fanatic pro-abortion apologists such as yourself. If the image of a 23 week old baby born alive after a botched abortion gasping for air with undeveloped lungs after having been burnt with a saline solution isn’t enough to make you weep, but instead rationalize Obama’s position, then something is wrong. BTW why do you feel the need to call Jill Stanek a liar via your “uncorroborated testimony” comment?

  23. David Nickol permalink
    June 13, 2009 10:53 am

    BTW why do you feel the need to call Jill Stanek a liar via your “uncorroborated testimony” comment?

    I did not call her a liar. I said her testimony was uncorroborated. They are not the same thing.

    Jill Stanek made allegations that some babies in Christ Hospital, where she worked as a nurse, were being mistreated (left to die unattended in utility rooms, and the like). These allegations were fully investigated by the Illinois Department of Public Health, which was unable to corroborate them. No one said Stanek lied, but an investigation of Christ Hospital was unable to confirm what Stanek alleged.

    A spokesman for the Illinois Department of Health later said the charges were taken very seriously, because they would have been violations of existing law. The fact that no legal action was taken as a result of the allegations was not because existing laws were inadequate, as some who wanted new laws maintained, but because the allegations were investigated and not substantiated.

    Suppose someone accuses you of a very serious crime, the police investigate, and they are unable to corroborate what your accuser said. Should you go to jail because someone made an accusation? Or should the police decline to arrest you because they can’t find any evidence that the accusations were true?

    Time and again we are told to read Jill Stanek’s testimony, which is indeed very heartbreaking and disturbing. However, it was investigated, and the investigation came up with nothing to verify it.

    If the image of a 23 week old baby born alive after a botched abortion gasping for air with undeveloped lungs after having been burnt with a saline solution isn’t enough to make you weep, but instead rationalize Obama’s position, then something is wrong.

    It is my understanding that saline abortions, once common, are now quite rare. I can only find mention of two live births as the result of saline abortions. It is definitely not something I would like to witness, And in any case, they are not done in the first trimester, which is the only time I think abortions should be permissible (unless the mother is in danger).

  24. June 13, 2009 12:34 pm

    The capability to suffer is what makes the difference. This is why the death of a blastocyst or zygote is far less tragic, to most, than of someone who’s aware of what’s happening, e.g. murdered by the Nazis. This is also why late term abortions are commonly restricted.

    The first trimester solution in most of Europe is far preferable to the American situation. This is also why abortion isn’t much of a topic in Europe. Not to mention that Western Europe’s teen pregnancy and abortion rates, e.g., are far, far lower than in God’s Own Country (TM).

    One thing “pro-lifers” can count on – it will never be illegal for a 9-year-old rape victim to have a life-saving abortion, excommunications by the Catholic church (not for the rapist, mind you) notwithstanding. Roe v. Wade is extreme, and so are both advocacy groups. Once more, this is something uniquely American.

  25. Joe Hargrave permalink
    June 13, 2009 6:19 pm

    “The capability to suffer is what makes the difference.”

    I don’t see why. Otherwise it might be legal to simply kill a person in their sleep, or better yet, kill them painlessly. I could put a deadly poison in your drink and you would just go to sleep and never wake up. Or someone could shoot you in the back of the head and you’d go down without ever knowing what hit you.

    Suppose the Nazis, instead of herding Jews into ghettos and submitting them to various torments and privations before marching them into the gas chambers, developed a race-based biological or chemical agent that could be spread over cities, causing all of the undesirable untermenschen to simply drop dead without any pain or suffering whatsoever. Would that make a difference? I certainly hope it would – especially since such weapons are not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

    No, what you and others really mean to say. and please correct me if I have misrepresented your position in any way, is that a human being in the first three months of its existence has no moral value – unless it is wanted, upon which, it has all the moral value in the world. You mean to say that the subjective wishes of the powerful mother count for more than the fundamental and elementary desire on the part of the weak unborn child to live.

    Completely lost is any notion whatsoever of a human life as a unique and special creation of God, valued infinitely by Him, if not by you, its mother, the pro-choice movement or the typical liberal. What will you say to that? Drudge up the Bible passages bandied around by pro-abortion Catholics? I wonder if you and others would do the same for laws mandating the execution of homosexuals and witches.

    The only preferable situation is one in which human life at all stages of development is accorded human rights, including the right to life. Needless to say, I do not care, and I am not impressed by the European consensus on the worthlessness of life in the first trimester.

    Finally, as with all choicers, you invoke the extreme outliers, the less-than-one-percenters, to make an irrational appeal.

  26. Kevin permalink
    June 14, 2009 2:04 am

    We had a miscarriage at 11 weeks. Our baby came out intact. He had a beautiful fully formed face, ten tiny fingers and ten tiny toes. I’d encourage David, Gerald and all the rest of the pro-abortion apologists to take a look at some of the three dimensional photographs of 9, 10 or 11 week week fetuses in the womb and see what you are so willing to allow to be killed on another person’s whim.

  27. June 23, 2009 6:34 pm

    I simply don’t see how anyone of right mind and constitution can disagree with what Joe is trying to say here.

    It’s so simple, so to-the-point, and altogether balanced… unless you’re a legalist looking for an extra, dotted ‘i’, few things other than praise should be expressed here.

    Feminism Schmeminism — it should be clearly ‘understood’ that the feminism he’s condemning and the feminism of a Catholic movement are different as night and day…. the first, a movement of self-hate, the latter, a noble set of principles based on human dignity, and the rights of the human person.

    Joe, excellent and eloquent work!

  28. June 23, 2009 6:37 pm

    lewiscrusade makes an excellent point about the democrat landslide — especially if you consider that, in all honesty, both candidates were essentially democrats.

    excellent other points too, btw!!!

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 850 other followers

%d bloggers like this: