ET Online flunks exam on abortion and genocide

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.