GAP at East Tennessee State University.

In response to GAP at East Tennessee State University, Lindsey King, Opinion Editor at ET Online, examined our handout, How Can You Compare Abortion to Genocide?  Her piece, Examining the “abortion is genocide” pamphlet, flunked the exam.

She starts with an ad hominem attack on Rabbie Yehuda Levin, whom we quote in the passage.  He said

Each form of genocide, whether Holocaust, lynching, abortion, etc., differs from all the others in the motives and methods of its perpetrators.  But each form of genocide is identical to all the others in that it involves the systematic slaughter, as state sanctioned “choice,” of innocent, defenseless victims — while denying their “personhood.”

It seems that, according to Ms. King and the Southern Poverty Law Center (a left-wing hate group), Rabbi Levin is not qualified to talk about genocide because he is an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who quotes passages from the Talmud (which offend modern ears).  Interesting claim.

We also quote Elizabeth Cady Stanton:

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.

Ms. King claims that there’s no evidence that Stanton ever said these words.  It would be more correct to say that the letter in which these remarks appeared cannot be found.  We found multiple independent sources which believe this to be an accurate quote, including here and here.  Further, there can be little credible doubt that Ms. Stanton and other feminists of her day were anti-abortion, which is really the point.

Ms. King also disputes the claim by embryology textbooks that each human life begins at fertilization, as chronicled here in great detail: When Does Human Life Begin?  She says that medical scientists should not be consulted on questions of medical science.  She says questions of science are for the philosopher to answer.  In other words, facts don’t matter.

Ms. King knows that she has no arguments to justify decapitating and dismembering little human beings, so she appeals to opinion editors who say we can’t really know if the growing human fetus with arms and legs and fingers and toes is really alive or not.

She links to a short video about personhood that perfectly illustrates our point.  The speaker doesn’t pick a side, but at the end of the video, he invites the viewer to

… try to figure out what you believe constitutes personhood.  As you consider the factors that you think are most important, be careful how you cast your net.  Make sure you include everyone you think should be included and exclude those you think should be excluded.

Bingo.  In other words, be sure to include yourself, but exclude the intended victim group.  Where have we seen that before?  Over and over again, perpetrators of genocide have redefined personhood in terms that excluded the intended victim class.  Over and over again, these victims were either in the way or had something that the perpetrators wanted.

Ms. King goes on to argue that because many (she claims as many as 50 percent) embryos die of natural causes very early in pregnancy, personhood should not be conferred at fertilization.  But the premise does not support the conclusion.  Most people die of natural causes at some point; that doesn’t justify killing them.

Finally, she avoids the question of when she believes personhood begins.  She doesn’t like our view that all human beings deserve equal protection, but she should tell us where she would draw the line between human beings who may be killed and human beings who must be protected.  And she should tell us what criteria she would use to draw that line.  In so doing, she should remember that every time we draw such lines, we get ourselves in moral trouble.

We strongly agree with Ms. King on one point:

Examine the information and arguments that are presented, think critically, [and] do your own research.

Amen.  Start here: www.AbortionNo.org.  And here: www.Abort73.com.

As Tennessee Right to Life and pro-lifers in Tennessee (including myself) were celebrating the victories won in the most recent Legislature, some in our movement were saying, “Wait a minute; not so fast!”

Many people, notably those involved in a number of Personhood campaigns all over the country, believe that laws restricting abortion actually help to enshrine abortion in the law.  Or that it has the effect of legitimizing abortion by implying it is acceptable as long as it is properly regulated.

J.D. Ellis, Tennessee Vice-Chairman of the America’s Independent Party (AIP) articulated the views of many:

… according to Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey, the purpose behind SJR 127 is to, “restore common sense restrictions” on abortion, such as a 48-hour waiting period, parental consent, and a requirement that abortions be performed in a hospital after the second trimester. In other words, our “pro-life” leaders want to use this amendment to enact laws defining the conditions under which the murder of unborn children will be accepted. Is this a truly pro-life position? Does this really acknowledge the personhood, and equality under the law, of the unborn? What other group of living human beings would we treat this way?

After World War II, should America have demanded that Germany “restore common sense restrictions” on the murder of Jews? Would we permit the killing of, say, high school teachers, as long as the murderer first waited 48 hours? Or how about the murder of blondes, provided the murder was committed at a hospital? Or the slaughter of 5-year-olds, so long as we first notified the victims’ grandparents? “Common sense restrictions”? On murder? No, when we really view the unborn as persons, and abortion as murder, then such regulations are not “common sense”, but complete nonsense!

Aside from all this, the supporters of SJR 127 also seem to lack the foresight to perceive what would happen next time the Democrats regain control under a Constitution that gives them the power to “enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion”. This amendment would give a Democrat-controlled General Assembly the power to make abortion on demand completely legal in Tennessee, with absolutely no restrictions. Some “pro-life” amendment this is!

What do you think?  Is Mr. Ellis right or wrong to oppose these measures?

For more information on Personhood, click here and/or here.  One of our favorite people in the whole pro-life movement is Dan Becker, President of Georgia Right to Life and a leader in the Personhood movement.  Order his new book Personhood here or here.

Here’s the FAB view.  We will never change public policy unless and until we change public opinion.  And we will never change public opinion until we show people pictures of abortion, because only pictures will make people see that (1) the preborn child is really a baby, even in the first trimester of pregnancy, and (2) abortion is a horrifying act of violence.

Unless and until we show large numbers of voters the truth, then we will never win the legislative battle to change the laws, neither by the Legislature nor by passing Personhood amendments at the state level.

Having said that, we believe there is value in both protective legislation and in Personhood, and we pledge to do whatever we can to support both.

Legislation now saves babies now.  We rejoice over each life saved.  If a building is burning and 100 people are trapped inside, shouldn’t we save 10, 20, or 50, even if that’s all we can do?  And didn’t the abolition of slavery begin with restrictions on the practice?  To win those legislative battles, we must display abortion pictures so that voters can know what abortion is and does.  Even small changes in voting behavior will have a huge impact on the makeup of our legislative bodies.

Speaking of education, many in the Personhood movement believe that ballot initiatives are an excellent teaching tool for educating people about the evil of abortion.  Absolutely!  And to accomplish the education that is necessary to win this nationally, we must include abortion pictures in our voter education efforts.  Otherwise, the public will not apply the kind of pressure necessary to first overturn Roe v Wade and then outlaw abortion nationally.

At FAB, we are much like Billy Martin in some of those Miller Lite commercials from the 1980s.  We feel strongly both ways.  What do you think?  Please comment!