Foundations of Roe v. Wade are Crumbling
Pierre, South Dakota — The South Dakota Senate State Affairs Committee passed legislation this morning that will ban abortion in that state. HB 1215 moved out of committee with a vote 5 to 2 and will now face a final vote in full Senate sometime next week, likely by Thursday.
The South Dakota House already has overwhelmingly approved the measure that will make South Dakota the first state to ban abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that decriminalized abortion on demand in America. It is hoped that Governor Mike Rounds will sign the legislation, which will likely face a challenge in the Federal Courts.
“We are proud of the state of South Dakota for taking a leadership roll in what is becoming a movement to challenge head-on the facts of Roe that we believe were wrongly decided in 1973,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, who was present a today’s historic vote.
Five other states, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio, and Kentucky, have introduced similar abortion bans, which are currently working their ways through the state legislatures.
“What we are seeing is the beginning of a revolt in the states that no longer wish to tolerate the shedding of innocent blood on their soil,” said Newman. “We are encouraged that we are seeing the beginnings of a movement that will soon put an end to abortion in America once and for all.”
“We will do everything in our power to network with the pro-life, pro-family organizations across the nation to make available to the state of South Dakota every resource to fight this expected litigation,” said Rev. Patrick Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, who was also present at today’s vote. “We are literally seeing the foundations of Roe v. Wade crumble.”
This is a big step in the pro-life movement in South Dakota. However, I must state that I am not entirely optimistic about the Supreme Court going along with it. While it does seem like the high court is moving farther right, I cannot forget the 9-0 vote they cast against Terry Schivo. Do we really have a pro-life Supreme Court or not? We will know over time.
Steven
Finally, the floodtide of justice, that God-given aspiration, is coming to a point after a thirty-two year bloodbath. yes; the ban is (with respect to precedent) unconstitutional. Who cares? The forces of darkness, ie liberalism, feminism, and the whole pro choice movement cannot, by nature, hold us back forever! Long live that certain inalienable right to live!
I’ll laugh when the supreme court strikes down your silly little law either by, 5-4, 6-3, or 7-2. In the long term this could actually help the pro-choice cause. If the current court (with 4 strong liberal justices) has to reexamine their abortion precedent they’ll likely abandon the “undue burden” standard (which allows most abortion regulations to stand) and adopt a far more pro-choice standard that will strike down most abortion regulations.
Dear newposter1,
Perhaps you are not aware that just a few weeks ago the Supreme Court actually reaffirmed parental notification in a 9-0 vote? As time and progress march on, the pro-choice movement losses ground. A slim majority now consistenty believe abortion is immoral and murder (see LA Times polls and Gallup).
Is unfettered abortion what you really want? I can think of 4 abortion “drs” in just the past few years who’ve been arrested and prosecuted for sexually abusing their patients. We’ve seen many women in the past 12 months carted out of Tiller’s clinic. One of those dead, and do you care about the women who are permentently damaged? Do you care about the teenage girls who died from abortion complications, while their parents were unaware they were SEPTIC and near death- thinking they only had the flu- because they weren’t notified their daughter was undergoing a surgerical (or medical) procedure? Do you NOT care about the unsantitary state of some clinics whose providers are so callous they do not CARE about the conditions?
Obviously the aspect of the children doesn’t concern you, but can you not even find concern for the born women who ARE being victimized by this industry and your rhetoric?
to NewPoster1,
“In the long-term this could actually help the pro-choice cause”….why not just say the pro-baby butchering cause? It’s been said here before, and recently, that most informed Americans are aware that the term “choice” is, in the context of legalized induced abortion, just a codeword for baby-butchering on demand, at any time, and for any reason, or for no reason.
This is a huge travesty, in view of the following (also posted here before, several times, but apparently some folks are slow either see the obvious, face & admit the truth, or both. . .):
Legalized abortion is not, has never been, and will never be, about giving women ‘freedom to choose’. It is, and has always been, about the STATE, in collusion with the medical profession, arrogating to themselves the right to KILL those they deign “subpar”, “expendable,” and other demeaning designations too cruel (think for just a second how you would feel if it were YOUR entire being referenced in such terms) and numerous to go into here. Never forget that the state, in collusion with the medical profession, murdered some 12 million Jews and other “expendables” in Nazi Germany, and the dispatching of the victims to their deaths in the gas chambers was called “selections”, just as the dispatching of unborn children to their deaths in abortion chambers is called “choice”— in both cases, to protect the psyches of the killers, and to further the killing agenda.
The co-founder of NARAL admitted, after his 180 turn on abortion (funny how we only hear the truth from poor-choice leaders AFTER they have changed to pro-life positions. . .) that he knew just how cynical these slogans were when he coined them in order to make the mass slaughter of innocent little children in utero acceptable, if not palatable, to Americans on whom the Supreme Court would impose the Roe v. Wade holocaust, with all the gore, injustice, murder, mayhem and mutilation in the name of “medicine” not just upon the children, but upon many of their mothers as well. How many? According to at least one independent survey, over 90% of post-abortive women bitterly regret their abortions, while very few, if any, women who have chosen life wish that they could turn back the hands of time and abort the children they have either come to know and love, or at least given a chance at life via adoption, however difficult the circumstances were for her personally.
But don’t just take it from me: It was Dr. Bernard Nathanson who made up the early slogans — “Freedom of choice”, “Women must have control over their own bodies,” and the like. Here are his own words:
“I remember laughing when we made those slogans up,” recalls Nathanson, reminiscing about the early days of the abortion-rights movement in the late ’60s and early ’70s. “We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical.”
This inherent cynicism is clear enough to any thinking person of conscience who will stop long enough to consider these observations, borne out by 33 years, now, of infinite loss of human life, health and happiness as a direct result of Roe v. Wade:
* Frederica Mathewes-Greene wrote, years ago, “There is tremendous sadness, loneliness in the cry, A woman’s right to choose.’ No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.” This quote has been quoted by a number of poor-choice advocates, even making it’s way onto the front of Planned Parenthood’s Public Affairs Action Letter boxed as “Quote of the Week”. Even they could not gainsay the truth of this, their “pro-choice” rhetoric notwithstanding. Aside from the obvious, that an act of such desperation is the molecular opposite, so to speak, of a real act of volition, it demonstrates yet another dark side of this “right to choose”; the “right” of the father of the child to abandon his mate, his child, and, ipso facto, his manhood. Sorry, but that is, in itself, a gross wrong, not a right; and a gross violation of normal female sexuality.
This is because, as Mathewes-Greene has further pointed out, women’s sexuality is deeply tied to commitment and emotional stability, and in this bad bargain women lose. Abortion severs two relationships at once, the woman from her lover and from her child. No wonder pro-choice slogans ring with first-person-singulars: my right, my decision, my body, my choice. The flip side of autonomy is loneliness. Abortion promises to make a woman unfettered, empowered and free; instead she finds herself isolated, endangered and sad.
It’s a sadness condoms can’t cheer. Contraception fails to make everything dandy, because it is a technological solution for an emotional problem. Where the balance of sexual power is so far off, throwing a few condoms into the mix isn’t going to improve anything. In fact, half of all women having abortions say they weren’t using any form of birth control at all—despite the low-cost availability of condoms in every small town across the nation, and their use promoted as nearly a patriotic act.
Abortion is the handmaiden of the sexual revolution, that great male victory in the war between the sexes. As feminist poet Adrienne Rich says, “The so-called sexual revolution of the sixties [was] briefly believed to be congruent with the liberation of women…it did not mean that we were free to discover our own sexuality, but rather that we were expected to behave according to male notions of female sexuality.”
Scientists have finally discovered the cause of unplanned pregnancy: sex. When sexual relations take place in a relationship lacking emotional commitment, any unsought pregnancy is much more likely to be difficult. Abortion allows the Playboy-friendly status quo to continue, disposing of the ties that might bind. [In keeping with this, the Playboy empire of Hugh Hefner and Planned Parenthood have been very intimate bedfellows for decades, despite the rightful antipathy of early feminists towards the degradation and exploitation of women inherent in that thralldom.
True respect for “women’s choice” (face it; women frequently intentionally try to get pregnant because they, naturally, want to have children; virtually no woman tries to get pregnant so that she can get an abortion. . .which fact, in itself, argues powerfully against the notion that abortion is, in any real way, "a woman's choice") means restoring that sexual balance-of-power, with respect for women’s need for commitment and security—in short, abstinence before and fidelity within marriage. It also means supporting women who get pregnant nevertheless, with pregnancy care services and adoption counseling.
* Abortion has proven to be the “choice” that ends all real choices not only for millions of women who could be making legitimate choices of all sorts if they had not been aborted, but for many of their mothers as well.
[It never fails to amaze me how so many poor-choice women born since Roe are so inept at making the simplest of connexions, namely, that had their moms chosen to abort them instead of carrying them to term (and beyond), it is not a “mere fetus” that would not be here now, but the individual young woman that each of them has become. . .and will yet become, given normal care…]
Many of these post-abortive mothers would be glad to testify as to the cruelly cynical difference between what they were misled to expect of their abortions and what actually occurred, but they can’t, you see, because they DIED – FROM “SAFE, LEGAL” ABORTION. For what remains of their stories, please go to ldi.org and read the Blackmun Wall; all of it. Many others have found, to their lifelong grief, that they cannot have children when they want them because of damages to their reproductive systems caused by—surprise, surprise— so-called “reproductive choice”. And sterility is not the only threat to wanted children; other abortion-related threats to future pregnancies include increased risk of future miscarriage; ectopic pregnancy(which has also proven to be life-threatening to women), placenta previa, infant handicap/premature birth. Real freedom to do anything, whether it’s create an art masterpiece, publish a book, get a degree, run a marathon, reproduce, etc., necessarily includes these essential factors; the ability, the opportunity, and the means to achieve the objective. Induced abortion is so very destructive to a woman’s ability to conceive and bear children that it should never be referenced as having any part of “reproductive freedom”; further, the emotional damage is not infrequently so great as to cut the woman off emotionally from future opportunities to have children without doing the aforementioned violence to her own womanhood, though she may still be able, physically, to do so.
* I noticed that you repeatedly use the term “choice” as a euphemism for abortion. Why not just say you’re pro-childkilling, since that is, in fact, the only option your notion of “choice” recognizes, at least in this context. If you have difficulty with this, then I must question your honesty with yourself, first, and then with other people.
* Phrases like “pro-choice”, “freedom of choice”, etc. represent the ultimate linguistic perversion/distortion in using the language of freedom, volition, and civil rights to very cynically, and falsely, reference the ultimate oppression, and the vilest, most blatant attack on the most fundamental civil right, the right to life. Without life, no one has any choice, though without the “choice” you promote, many more people would have life.
* Aside from the linguistic perversion, the wrong you so proudly flout as a “right” represents a huge legal, constitutional perversion in that a.) of the millions of registered American voters, exactly nine of them were allowed to vote on the matter of legalized childkilling; the rest were given no choice; b.) the constitutional rights to life, and other protections, were taken from the most vulnerable, and most innocent Americans.
You know, stuff like no execution without DUE process of law, which clearly does not mean such draconic acts of judicial fiat as Roe & Doe. It means a fair trial by jury, preceded by a WARRANTED arrest and resulting in conviction of a capital offense, none of which can be read into “Roe” or “Doe” by any stretch of reasonable imagination.
* Anyone having any doubt after all the above, with regards to the deceitfulness of using the term “choice” to reference deliberate, premeditated, cold-blooded child-killing, especially for the mothers involved, would do well to ponder the ferocity with which the “pro-choice” lobby has opposed informed consent legislation every time, and in every place, that it has been proposed.
Informed consent makes for more real choice, but, typically, fewer abortions. Just more proof that real choice and abortion are polar opposites…especially for the victims submitting, and submitted, to them. But then, that’s the way genocide works: everyone gets a choice but the victims…or, as one astute observer of humanity (and inhumanity) put it, “It’s easy to be ‘pro-choice’ so long as you’re not the one ‘chosen’”. . .
Wachet Auf!
To ORW,
Yes, we naturally hope to see this brutal procedure banned, but after all the abuse of this particular issue as a “chip” played disingenuously from both sides, let us not forget that there is no right way, time, or place to do an intrinsically wrong thing, and that all methods of child-killing are equally unjust, brutal, and murderous; yes, there is no doubt that “NewPoster1″ would feel very differently towards this “silly little law” and the poor-choice cause both were it his/her head about to be stabbed and his/her brains sucked out…alive, and with no anesthesia…but would (s)he prefer to be sliced up with a knife, and sucked down a vacuum tube piecemeal…again, living and with no anesthesia. . .?!
Back to NP1, just answer the question….! Answering it honestly will help you abandon an “Undue burden” of falsehood, hypocrisy, bloodguilt, hatred, injustice, cruelty, and other negatives that the pro-poorchoice position ipso facto thrusts upon those who buy into it.
I think Leslie’s post is most similar to most pro-life advocates. The tie between “god-given” rights and the rights of American’s should not be confused. It is very important that people realize a right given by your god is not the same as an American right.
I appreciate “use of reality’s” argument. You make some great points without pulling the “god” card, which should be avoided when discussing United States law. However I do want to argue that the pro-choice movement is not about baby-slaughter. It is about allowing Leslie to believe she has a baby in her womb, one week after conception, while I believe I have an embryo in my womb seven weeks after my conception. Our definitions are established by two different views.
I may be generalizing Leslie’s views but allow me some room as I can not ask her directly if I am correct. However, it seems her views come from her faith, the god she believes in. She believes there is a human life, with a soul that deserves the inalienable right to life immediately following conception. My views are different; my beliefs are not the same as hers. I pull my beliefs from the scientific difference between an embryo and a one-minute old baby.
We are allowed to have these different views because we are American. Further, we do not have to live by each other’s beliefs.
This being said, I will ask you to imagine making a very difficult and important decision in Nazi Germany. Pro-choice allows you to live by your beliefs, while I live by mine. Unfortunately, this abortion ban in South Dakota makes us all live in a pro-life environment, even if we don’t believe in it. This is the real difference between Nazi Germany and the United States. The abortion ban will just decrease the gap, not increase it.
P.S. contraception is not even close to being considered patriotic. As you did not develop this argument, I cannot respond appropriately, but come on: you aren’t even close on that one!
Gimme a break, Julie. For all your apparent concern for scientific fact, your argument is one of the most illogical I have read. You are saying your “belief” determines if a pre-born child is a “baby” or a “fetus.” Get a grip. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant and has absolutely nothing to do with your implied First Amendment rights.
It is scientifically provable that human life begins at the moment of conception. Conception is the moment when a new, unique individual is created that is undeniably alive and undeniably human. All your wishful thinking cannot change that provable fact. A person’s attitude towards another does not affect his humanity. It is philosophical mumbo jumbo to think that it does.
For Julie and co.,
A serious, realistic, thoughtful study of history will show that a society which allows doctors, especially, to kill children in utero (or, for that matter, anyone else) is, in fact, much more like Nazi Germany than one which legally protects the lives of those in the dawn of life (the very young; and the term “fetus”, which so many pro-aborts pervert and abuse to dehumanize preborn children actually means “young one”, “offspring”, “infant”; all these are legitimate translations of that term; more derogatory terms, like “blob of tissue”, “parasite”, “product of conception”, “disease”, etc., ad nauseam, are not), the shadows of life (the handicapped, the disabled, the poor, the unwanted); and the twilight of life (the elderly).
Induced abortion is bloody, cruel death for the baby boys and girls upon whom it is imposed, and it is living death- spiritually, emotionally, and often socially and physically, for the mothers who submit to it. It is NOT the way to promote a just, civilized, optimally free society (the polar opposite of Nazi Germany) because it allows the strong to use their advantages to exploit, to victimize, the comparatively weak or disadvantaged rather than protect, assist and empower them.
If you are determined to subject the unborn of society to labels which, in your mind, render them less than human and therefore justify removing legal protection from them, I am sure that no amount of truth will stop you; but to suggest that a law stopping you from imposing your view, fatally, on them, is a step in the direction of The Third Reich just shows how aggressive and malignant this mental & spiritual darkness can be if it is not dealt with.
According to Hannah Arendt’s study The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), the hallmark of totalitarian governments, whether fascist (like Nazi Germany) or communist, throughout history has been to treat those deemed stateless and expendable as “legal nonpersons.” This was done by the Nazis, of course, to handicapped persons, Jews, political dissidents, and other groups; it began with abortion access which was greatly expanded when Hitler came to power; though he tried to discourage Aryan women not to abort their children, this “positive eugenic” side was not nearly so pronounced, or so important, evidently, as the “negative eugenic” push to pressure those he considered “unfit” to live to abort theirs. According to testimony given at the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi concentration camps had abortion chambers where killers got up as healers murderously emptied one pregnant womb after another…mostly, of course, pregnant Jewish wombs.
By that standard, Roe v. Wade America qualifies as a totalitarian state, since unwanted unborn children have been deemed expendable and, as a consequence, treated as “legal nonpersons” (the better to devour and destroy them, my dear…) And for anyone who has actually taken the time to read the Constitution, even a fully developed brainstem is not required to discern that the totalitarian state imposed by the passage of Roe v. Wade is the opposite of any government based on and honestly informed by the laws and principles stated therein.
It is also entirely relevant and worth mentioning here that, by that standard, Roe v. Wade is not the first unjust, pseudo-scientific move of the Supreme Court to qualify the U.S. as a totalitarian state, by Arendt’s standard as stated above. There was Dred Scott; mercifully, this has been overturned, as any humane person of conscience would hope that Roe v. Wade and its companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, will be, and the sooner the better for all concerned.
Speaking of killer doctors, did you know that the standards of medical practice embodied in the Hippocratic Oath have, historically, come under severe attack and been discarded twice since they were established as the definitive standard for legitimate medical practice? The first time was in Germany, just before, and during, the Third Reich; the second in the U.S., in the years before, and, increasingly, since Roe/Doe, as the killers seek to expand the killing fields to the handicapped, older born children, the elderly and others deemed as a burden by someone. Common to both cultures (the Third Reich and Roe v. Wade America) were, additionally, the following aspects imposed on many (against their beliefs) by a relative few elitist megalomaniacs:
1.) A blurring, and crossing, of the line between healing and killing by doctors;
2.) The widespread notion of killing as a healing imperative;
3.) A tendency to pathologize/criminalize any ideology that did not embrace the first two, and the general eugenic doctrines and aims of the Nazi party, but with no attempts to disprove that ideology by the Nazi party.
4.) Unrelenting, vicious, widespread propaganda campaigns (a.k.a. hate speech) to marginalize, dehumanize, and demean the intended victim groups: mainly the Jews, the handicapped, and the unborn, but other groups as well whose genes, ideology, consciences, or natural inclinations were not useful or acceptable to the Nazis. The mass murder in the Nazi death chambers and in American abortion chambers were merely the anti-(victim’s group name here) propaganda speech taken to it’s intended end and turned into violent, cruel, destructive, genocidal action.
5.) The Nazis certainly did not want the laws of God informing their laws, either. Your sympathy with their views on that are curiously phrased when you suggest that God’s laws “should” not inform national law: the term “should” invokes some absolute standard; but since there is, in your view, no transcendent God to authorize one particular standard as over against another, what makes yours any better than that of someone else who may view things differently? Someone, especially, that is likely to be victimized by your callous, arrogant replacement of God’s views with your own. And there are inevitably victims: As Frederick Douglass put it, “THE FIRST WORK OF SLAVERY IS TO MAR AND DEFACE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ITS VICTIMS WHICH DISTINGUISH MEN FROM THINGS AND PERSONS FROM PROPERTY. ITS FIRST AIM IS TO DESTROY ALL SENSE OF HIGH MORAL AND RELIGIOUS RESPONSIBILITY. IT REDUCES MAN TO A MERE MACHINE. IT CUTS HIM OFF FROM HIS MAKER, IT HIDES FROM HIM THE LAWS OF GOD.” The chief aim of any totalitarian government (fascist, communist, or socialist) is, of course, to reduce all its subjects to the level of property, to be used, abused, and discarded at will with no sense of accountability to anyone for these abuses. To me Douglass’ statement is self-evident and self-explanatory; but for anyone who may require further eludication, here are a few more relevant statements from documented sources:
“National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. . . Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. . .Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. . . The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.” Adolpf Hitler, all.
“The first step in the creation of their [Nazi] new indigenous church was to get rid of the “Old Testament with its {Hebrew} morality of rewards, and its stories of cattledealers and concubines.”*
“Christianity and Nazism are like fire and water. We must not yet say this openly. Outwardly we must not attack Christianity, we must be far more clever; we are not interfering with denominational matters, but with mathematical exactitude we will win the battle for ideology. We cannot say this to those who still believe…but there are times when these things can be said amongst us, sworn comrades.”
—Party speaker at school for party leaders, June 1936
“WE NAZIS DEMAND A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE ENTIRE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE COUNTRY. What is the sense in still having Catholic associations of civil servants? We do not want Protestant or Catholic civil servants, we want German civil servants…We do not need a Catholic or a Protestant but only a German press. (NPR, PBS, etc.) The Catholic professional organizations and the Catholic youth organizations no longer fit into our age. They are often active in areas which the Nazi State claims for itself in the fulfillment of tasks. All these things are designed to disturb the unity of the German people, which Adolf Hitler created after fifteen years of struggle for the SOUL of Germany.” – Wilhelm Frick, Minister of the Interior (caps added)
I think that any thoughtful review of history will show that the Ten Commandments have proven themselves many times over to be the surest foundation for the freest, happiest, most humane, civilized, productive and just societies that dared to entrust their integrity to them; which prohibited act would you want done to you? Do you want to be deceived, robbed, murdered, betrayed, or disregarded by people in whom you have invested your life as a mate or parent, if either of those designations apply to you? Or if they don’t apply but did, would you? I don’t think so…The commandments weren’t given to the Jews to make them “better than everyone else”; they were intentionally given by God through the Jews to provide all mankind with a framework to save all mankind from societal chaos…which is, of course, the logical, and tragic, end of the purely subjective, “me-based” value system you flaunt. Conversely, it doesn’t take a history major to take an honest look at the Third Reich and recognize the cruelly false dichotomy drawn between “quality of life” and “sanctity of life”; a more sobering, and reasonable conclusion is that true quality of life is the fruit of a tree rooted in a sound sanctity-of-life ethic; NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND; and, like most other normal trees, if you cut the tree off from the root, the fruit withers, or is not produced.
The ideology and practices embraced, and imposed on the selected (chosen) victim classes of both the Third Reich and Roe v. Wade America resulted in the mass exterminations rightly, and commonly, referred to as holocausts. I know that, even among liberals who will admit that the Nazi holocaust is a documented fact of history, it is fashionable to deny as “false”, sometimes even “anti-Semitic”, any comparisons between the two. But it isn’t just. The list of other documented, relevant comparisons between the Third Reich and Roe v. Wade America could fill a book; in fact, it already has filled at least one; that book is called The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution. Unfortunately, it is currently out of print; however, if the truth on this matter is of real interest to you, a “copy of a copy” of this book can be ordered by phone; that number is 1-800-JOHN 10:9; just call during normal business hours M-F, and I am sure that they will be more than happy to assist. In the meantime, here is an excerpt from that work which should, if taken in the right spirit, put you on the right path in this and related matters:
To point out that today’s medical abortionists are doing the same thing to the unwanted unborn as the Nazis did to their victims does not have the remotest connection to anti-Semitism. There is nothing inherently anti-Semitic about emphasizing how other victims, in addition to Jews, have undergone persecution, degradation, and annihilation. To invoke the specter of anti-Semitism against anyone who dares to attempt to draw parallels between the killing of Europe’s Jews and the destruction of America’s unborn amounts to a diversionary device meant to prevent the exploration and disclosure of information containing horrendous ramifications. Such a tactic flies in the face of the indispensable message expressed by almost every survivor who has ever written about the Nazi holocaust: a warning to the world that what happened to the Jews during the Nazi era was not so unique that it could not or would not happen again. Forging links between prior and present brutalities is decidedly pro rather than anti-Semitic, and in perfect accord with the priceless legacy left to the world by the death camp survivors.
Although every holocaust ever perpetrated is a unique event in its own right, this should not detract from what all holocausts share in common. The central horror of any holocaust — whether in involves the extermination of Jews by the Nazis, the massacre of Russians by the Soviet regime, the eradication of Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge, or the slaughter of unborn children by medical doctors — is the systematic destruction of millions looked upon as indiscriminate masses of subhuman expendables. The basic ingredients for a holocaust exist whenever any society can be misled into defining individuals as less than human and therefore devoid of value and respect. Once any group of individuals, born or unborn, is not deemed worthy of the designation human, the precedent is established for defining ever growing numbers of people out of the human race, therefore rendering them stateless and bereft of human rights, including the most basic right, that of life itself. When the rights of some are extinguished, the rights of all are placed in dire jeopardy.”
If any of the arguments showing the cruelty, cynicism and deceitfulness of using the term “choice” to reference legalized baby butchering have made sense to you, well and good; feel free to use them; while some of them have occurred to me independently of consulting with others, not all of them have; but all of them are simple matters of historical fact. But don’t discount God in these matters; if it were not for him, I would exist, and would not have been able to draw, recognize, appreciate the truth of, or relate the conclusions I have regarding that matter.
For Julie and co.,
A serious, realistic, thoughtful study of history will show that a society which allows doctors, especially, to kill children in utero (or, for that matter, anyone else) is, in fact, much more like Nazi Germany than one which legally protects the lives of those in the dawn of life (the very young; and the term “fetus”, which so many pro-aborts pervert and abuse to dehumanize preborn children actually means “young one”, “offspring”, “infant”; all these are legitimate translations of that term; more derogatory terms, like “blob of tissue”, “parasite”, “product of conception”, “disease”, etc., ad nauseam, are not), the shadows of life (the handicapped, the disabled, the poor, the unwanted); and the twilight of life (the elderly).
Induced abortion is bloody, cruel death for the baby boys and girls upon whom it is imposed, and it is living death- spiritually, emotionally, and often socially and physically, for the mothers who submit to it. It is NOT the way to promote a just, civilized, optimally free society (the polar opposite of Nazi Germany) because it allows the strong to use their advantages to exploit, to victimize, the comparatively weak or disadvantaged rather than protect, assist and empower them.
If you are determined to subject the unborn of society to labels which, in your mind, render them less than human and therefore justify removing legal protection from them, I am sure that no amount of truth will stop you; but to suggest that a law stopping you from imposing your view, fatally, on them, is a step in the direction of The Third Reich just shows how aggressive and malignant this mental & spiritual darkness can be if it is not dealt with.
According to Hannah Arendt’s study The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), the hallmark of totalitarian governments, whether fascist (like Nazi Germany) or communist, throughout history has been to treat those deemed stateless and expendable as “legal nonpersons.” This was done by the Nazis, of course, to handicapped persons, Jews, political dissidents, and other groups; it began with abortion access which was greatly expanded when Hitler came to power; though he tried to discourage Aryan women not to abort their children, this “positive eugenic” side was not nearly so pronounced, or so important, evidently, as the “negative eugenic” push to pressure those he considered “unfit” to live to abort theirs. According to testimony given at the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi concentration camps had abortion chambers where killers got up as healers murderously emptied one pregnant womb after another…mostly, of course, pregnant Jewish wombs.
By that standard, Roe v. Wade America qualifies as a totalitarian state, since unwanted unborn children have been deemed expendable and, as a consequence, treated as “legal nonpersons” (the better to devour and destroy them, my dear…) And for anyone who has actually taken the time to read the Constitution, even a fully developed brainstem is not required to discern that the totalitarian state imposed by the passage of Roe v. Wade is the opposite of any government based on and honestly informed by the laws and principles stated therein.
It is also entirely relevant and worth mentioning here that, by that standard, Roe v. Wade is not the first unjust, pseudo-scientific move of the Supreme Court to qualify the U.S. as a totalitarian state, by Arendt’s standard as stated above. There was Dred Scott; mercifully, this has been overturned, as any humane person of conscience would hope that Roe v. Wade and its companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, will be, and the sooner the better for all concerned.
Speaking of killer doctors, did you know that the standards of medical practice embodied in the Hippocratic Oath have, historically, come under severe attack and been discarded twice since they were established as the definitive standard for legitimate medical practice? The first time was in Germany, just before, and during, the Third Reich; the second in the U.S., in the years before, and, increasingly, since Roe/Doe, as the killers seek to expand the killing fields to the handicapped, older born children, the elderly and others deemed as a burden by someone. Common to both cultures (the Third Reich and Roe v. Wade America) were, additionally, the following aspects imposed on many (against their beliefs) by a relative few elitist megalomaniacs:
1.) A blurring, and crossing, of the line between healing and killing by doctors;
2.) The widespread notion of killing as a healing imperative;
3.) A tendency to pathologize/criminalize any ideology that did not embrace the first two, and the general eugenic doctrines and aims of the Nazi party, but with no attempts to disprove that ideology by the Nazi party.
4.) Unrelenting, vicious, widespread propaganda campaigns (a.k.a. hate speech) to marginalize, dehumanize, and demean the intended victim groups: mainly the Jews, the handicapped, and the unborn, but other groups as well whose genes, ideology, consciences, or natural inclinations were not useful or acceptable to the Nazis. The mass murder in the Nazi death chambers and in American abortion chambers were merely the anti-(victim’s group name here) propaganda speech taken to it’s intended end and turned into violent, cruel, destructive, genocidal action.
5.) The Nazis certainly did not want the laws of God informing their laws, either. Your sympathy with their views on that are curiously phrased when you suggest that God’s laws “should” not inform national law: the term “should” invokes some absolute standard; but since there is, in your view, no transcendent God to authorize one particular standard as over against another, what makes yours any better than that of someone else who may view things differently? Someone, especially, that is likely to be victimized by your callous, arrogant replacement of God’s views with your own. And there are inevitably victims: As Frederick Douglass put it, “THE FIRST WORK OF SLAVERY IS TO MAR AND DEFACE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ITS VICTIMS WHICH DISTINGUISH MEN FROM THINGS AND PERSONS FROM PROPERTY. ITS FIRST AIM IS TO DESTROY ALL SENSE OF HIGH MORAL AND RELIGIOUS RESPONSIBILITY. IT REDUCES MAN TO A MERE MACHINE. IT CUTS HIM OFF FROM HIS MAKER, IT HIDES FROM HIM THE LAWS OF GOD.” The chief aim of any totalitarian government (fascist, communist, or socialist) is, of course, to reduce all its subjects to the level of property, to be used, abused, and discarded at will with no sense of accountability to anyone for these abuses. To me Douglass’ statement is self-evident and self-explanatory; but for anyone who may require further eludication, here are a few more relevant statements from documented sources:
“National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. . . Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. . .Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. . . The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.” Adolpf Hitler, all.
“The first step in the creation of their [Nazi] new indigenous church was to get rid of the “Old Testament with its {Hebrew} morality of rewards, and its stories of cattledealers and concubines.”*
“Christianity and Nazism are like fire and water. We must not yet say this openly. Outwardly we must not attack Christianity, we must be far more clever; we are not interfering with denominational matters, but with mathematical exactitude we will win the battle for ideology. We cannot say this to those who still believe…but there are times when these things can be said amongst us, sworn comrades.”
—Party speaker at school for party leaders, June 1936
“WE NAZIS DEMAND A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE ENTIRE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE COUNTRY. What is the sense in still having Catholic associations of civil servants? We do not want Protestant or Catholic civil servants, we want German civil servants…We do not need a Catholic or a Protestant but only a German press. (NPR, PBS, etc.) The Catholic professional organizations and the Catholic youth organizations no longer fit into our age. They are often active in areas which the Nazi State claims for itself in the fulfillment of tasks. All these things are designed to disturb the unity of the German people, which Adolf Hitler created after fifteen years of struggle for the SOUL of Germany.” – Wilhelm Frick, Minister of the Interior (caps added)
I think that any thoughtful review of history will show that the Ten Commandments have proven themselves many times over to be the surest foundation for the freest, happiest, most humane, civilized, productive and just societies that dared to entrust their integrity to them; which prohibited act would you want done to you? Do you want to be deceived, robbed, murdered, betrayed, or disregarded by people in whom you have invested your life as a mate or parent, if either of those designations apply to you? Or if they don’t apply but did, would you? I don’t think so…The commandments weren’t given to the Jews to make them “better than everyone else”; they were intentionally given by God through the Jews to provide all mankind with a framework to save all mankind from societal chaos…which is, of course, the logical, and tragic, end of the purely subjective, “me-based” value system you flaunt. Conversely, it doesn’t take a history major to take an honest look at the Third Reich and recognize the cruelly false dichotomy drawn between “quality of life” and “sanctity of life”; a more sobering, and reasonable conclusion is that true quality of life is the fruit of a tree rooted in a sound sanctity-of-life ethic; NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND; and, like most other normal trees, if you cut the tree off from the root, the fruit withers, or is not produced.
The ideology and practices embraced, and imposed on the selected (chosen) victim classes of both the Third Reich and Roe v. Wade America resulted in the mass exterminations rightly, and commonly, referred to as holocausts. I know that, even among liberals who will admit that the Nazi holocaust is a documented fact of history, it is fashionable to deny as “false”, sometimes even “anti-Semitic”, any comparisons between the two. But it isn’t just. The list of other documented, relevant comparisons between the Third Reich and Roe v. Wade America could fill a book; in fact, it already has filled at least one; that book is called The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution. Unfortunately, it is currently out of print; however, if the truth on this matter is of real interest to you, a “copy of a copy” of this book can be ordered by phone; that number is 1-800-JOHN 10:9; just call during normal business hours M-F, and I am sure that they will be more than happy to assist. In the meantime, here is an excerpt from that work which should, if taken in the right spirit, put you on the right path in this and related matters:
To point out that today’s medical abortionists are doing the same thing to the unwanted unborn as the Nazis did to their victims does not have the remotest connection to anti-Semitism. There is nothing inherently anti-Semitic about emphasizing how other victims, in addition to Jews, have undergone persecution, degradation, and annihilation. To invoke the specter of anti-Semitism against anyone who dares to attempt to draw parallels between the killing of Europe’s Jews and the destruction of America’s unborn amounts to a diversionary device meant to prevent the exploration and disclosure of information containing horrendous ramifications. Such a tactic flies in the face of the indispensable message expressed by almost every survivor who has ever written about the Nazi holocaust: a warning to the world that what happened to the Jews during the Nazi era was not so unique that it could not or would not happen again. Forging links between prior and present brutalities is decidedly pro rather than anti-Semitic, and in perfect accord with the priceless legacy left to the world by the death camp survivors.
Although every holocaust ever perpetrated is a unique event in its own right, this should not detract from what all holocausts share in common. The central horror of any holocaust — whether in involves the extermination of Jews by the Nazis, the massacre of Russians by the Soviet regime, the eradication of Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge, or the slaughter of unborn children by medical doctors — is the systematic destruction of millions looked upon as indiscriminate masses of subhuman expendables. The basic ingredients for a holocaust exist whenever any society can be misled into defining individuals as less than human and therefore devoid of value and respect. Once any group of individuals, born or unborn, is not deemed worthy of the designation human, the precedent is established for defining ever growing numbers of people out of the human race, therefore rendering them stateless and bereft of human rights, including the most basic right, that of life itself. When the rights of some are extinguished, the rights of all are placed in dire jeopardy.”
If any of the arguments showing the cruelty, cynicism and deceitfulness of using the term “choice” to reference legalized baby butchering have made sense to you, well and good; feel free to use them; while some of them have occurred to me independently of consulting with others, not all of them have; but all of them are simple matters of historical fact. But don’t discount God in these matters; if it were not for him, I would exist, and would not have been able to draw, recognize, appreciate the truth of, or relate the conclusions I have regarding that matter.
I think it completely overlooks the point to state that a woman’s “choice” is something men who care about their women would “willingly” allow them to submit to. The law such as it is prevents them from being participants in what would otherwise be seen, by society, as their own responsibility in creation and care for anew life. It pre-empts this responsibility and exempts all other parties from holding any “feelings” for the naturally protective feelings of the father. To assume all men or even most would willingly approve the destruction of their progeny is ignorance. Excluding those for whom this actually IS what they’d like to see happen, I think it is fair to say that most of the people I know who were prevented attainment of fatherhood due to temporary economic cricumstance would have been fully capable, and willing, to take on their responsibilities – had only they been allowed.
It also seems to be a “trend” in the social climate as it is to accept “a first abortion” as a “rite of passage” into “liberated womanhood”- and there ARE those out there for whom that might be said to be true.
The law as it stands now denies basic human rights to everyone involved.