There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of a higher
order than the right to life ... That was the premise of slavery. You
could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the
plantation because that was private and therefore outside of your
right to be concerned.
Jesse Jackson, February 13, 1975.[1]
Anti-Life Philosophy.
Any parallel drawn between the Abolitionists or civil rights
activists and anti-choice terrorists is outrageous, inaccurate, and
insulting to all people of color.
While those who worked to end slavery were fighting for the freedom
of people of color, anti-choice fanatics are doing exactly the opposite:
They are attempting to deprive women everywhere of their fundamental
right of reproductive freedom and this program of oppression and
repression especially impacts women of color.
Introduction.
The pro-aborts squawk endlessly about how "inappropriate"
the analogy between abortion and slavery is. They also snivel about
parallels between the Nazi Holocaust and the current American Holocaust,
as described in Chapter 53, "Holocaust Analogy to Abortion."
However, they know that these parallels strike very close to the
truth too close to the truth for their comfort. This is why they never
try to refute any of the many parallels between the two injustices. All
they can do is whine as loudly and as bitterly as possible in the hope
of diverting attention from the central issue the mass slaughter of
innocent preborn babies.
The similarities between the old institution of mass slavery and the
new program of mass abortion in the United States are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
The Striking Similarities
Between Slavery and Abortion.
Introduction.
Karl Marx once said that "History does everything twice; the
first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."[2]
If this bit of wisdom is true, abortion in America is the greatest
farce of all a farce, for all intents and purposes, that is exactly
equivalent to the tragedy of slavery in the following ways;
(1) the use of incrementalism;
(2) the dehumanization of the victims;
(3) vicious attacks upon the victim's defenders;
(4) the rise of pro-oppression 'churches;'
(5) legal parallels; and
(6) historical political coincidences.
These parallels are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Parallel #1: The Use of
Incrementalism.
The Principle.
A social evil must inevitably 'progress' through a process that
always requires three steps;
(1) the social engineers describe the behavior as a 'necessary
evil' while they work to legalize it;
(2) when the behavior is legal, it is reclassified as a morally
neutral issue that nobody can really pass judgment on;
(3) finally, the supporters of the behavior defend it as a positive
good and resist any and all efforts to limit it in any way while
making sure that it becomes entrenched at all levels of government.
This three-step process is a description of the process of
gradualism, or 'incrementalism,' and is explained more fully in Chapter
7 of Volume I.
Slavery and Abortion.
We have reached the second stage of incrementalism with abortion.
Pro-aborts now demand that we all recognize abortion as a positive
social good. They unflinchingly demand that taxpayers fund abortions (no
matter what their views on the issue), that the courts keep the abortion
'right' inviolable, and even that Catholic hospitals and physicians
perform abortions.
There is no room for 'dissent' among pro-aborts.
One extraordinary quote by an Abolitionist highlights the vivid
similarity between the attitudes of the slaveholders and that of the
pro-abortionists. Simply substitute the word "abortion" for
the word "slavery," and you will see the striking analogy.
The question recurs, what will satisfy them [the slavers]? What
will convince them? This, and this only: Cease to call slavery wrong,
and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly
done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated we
must place ourselves avowedly with them. Holding as they do, that
slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to
demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a
social blessing.[3]
Parallel #2:
Dehumanization of the Victims.
The Principle.
In any large-scale act of oppression, it is absolutely necessary to
reduce the target population to a subhuman state through propaganda, so
that the general public does not perceive (or does not care about) the
injustices that are being heaped upon them. The more brutal the
oppression, the more extreme the propaganda must be.
Dehumanization is necessary in order to keep the [Jews, niggers,
products of conception] in their places and, most importantly, to
prevent others from seeing their inherent humanity and sympathizing with
them.
The basic idea here is that an entire subset of the human race is
rendered biologically inferior to others through the use of manipulative
words.
Slavery and Abortion.
During the days of slavery, Blacks were called "dregs of
humanity," and were considered "exactly intermediate between
the superior order of beasts such as elephant, dog, and orangutan, and
European or white men."[4]
Other slave owners referred to the slave's "ignorance,
brutality, obscenity, animal appetite, viciousness, and
illegitimacy," and called them "ignorant, perverse, wicked,
the pest of white men, and agents of satan."[5]
Today in America, the same dehumanizing terms are used as an
effective weapon against the preborn. The following terms, used by
anti-life writers to describe the unborn, are all extracted from
pro-abortion literature;
• "Just like fingernail clippings or warts;"
• Products of conception, contents of the uterus;
• Little worms or maggots;
• Abortus, conceptus, gobbets of meat;
• Blob of tissue, parasite, leech;
• Masses of protoplasm, human waste;
• A kind of venereal disease;
• A "loathsome plague," a "hideous affliction;"
And many more.
It is interesting indeed that the number of dehumanizing names
attached to a target population is directly proportional to the
perceived threat it poses to the oppressor.
It is obvious from the above that anti-lifers consider preborns very
dangerous indeed.
Parallel #3: Attacks on
the Victim's Defenders.
The Principle.
When a people are being oppressed, their aggressors know that any
effective voice raised in opposition may prod the conscience of the
nation and lead to the victim's protection. Therefore, it is mandatory
that the opposition be silenced at all costs. The Abolitionists were
viciously attacked a century and a half ago, and pro-life activists are
being just as viciously attacked now although generally by different and
only sometimes subtler means.
Slavery and Abortion.
Gangs of pro-slavers burned and plundered the homes, churches and
printing presses of the Abolitionists. Those who fought slavery were
beaten, hung, tarred and feathered; were ridiculed by the mainline
press; and became pariahs even to their churches.
Abolitionist Marcus Robinson was kidnapped, tarred and feathered, and
dumped by a roadside; Theodore Weld was stoned almost to death; Elija
Lovejoy's press building was torched while he was in it, and, when he
emerged, he was beaten to death by a mob.
Today, pro-lifers are physically attacked, not only by abortionists
but by police; they have been shot at, doused with acid, blinded, and
attacked with cars and baseball bats; their homes, churches and cars
have been torched, splattered with excrement, and otherwise vandalized;
their viewpoint is ridiculed and censored by the press; in fact, until
recently, pro-lifers were barred from medical schools (a situation only
remedied by an act of Congress).
Details of some of these violent physical attacks are given in
Chapter 19 of Volume III, "Anti-Life Violence."
Every pro-life activist is aware of the extraordinary range of labels
applied to them by the allegedly "tolerant and nonjudgmental"
pro-abortionists; "fanatics;" "terrorists;"
"reactionaries;" "anti-progressives;" "Papist
slaves;" "hypocrites;" "oppressors of women
(misogynists);" "small but vocal minority;"
"hysterical Bible-beaters;" "Ayatollah Khomeini
clones" (abortionist Bill Baird); "drooling androids"
(abortion lawyer Ed Tiryak); and a universe of other derogatory and
belittling terms.
Pro-life journalists have been harassed, demoted, and fired because
of their views, while pro-abortion journalists proudly strut in
pro-death marches (there is, in fact, not a single case of a
pro-abortion journalist being disciplined because of his or her views).
Professor Dennis Horan has revealed that being pro-abortion was
mandatory for Federal judgeships during President Carter's term, and
Bill Clinton has promised that all of his Supreme Court nominees will be
required to swear allegiance to Roe v. Wade. Meanwhile, pro-life
judges are urged to disqualify themselves from rescue trials (while
pro-abortion judges never are); pro-life viewpoints are generally
censored in schools and universities as "too controversial"
(while pro-abortion viewpoints are considered "contributions to
plurality") and pro-abortionists even vigorously oppose informed
consent for women seeking abortions and have attempted to drive crisis
pregnancy centers out of business.
Pro-life rescuers are given sentences of years for simple
trespass, just as several states mandated imprisonment for Abolitionists
who agitated a little too loudly or effectively for the comfort of the
slavers in power.
Interestingly, in their efforts to discredit the pro-life position,
pro-abortionists trot out quisling Blacks who wholeheartedly support
abortion. These people are generally referred to as "Oreos:"
Black outside, White inside. This is the same tactic of infiltration and
subversion the pro-aborts use to undermine the moral authority of the
Catholic Church with the fake religious group 'Catholics' for a Free
Choice.
The media, as always, is ready and eager to help in this charade. One
good example could be found in the September 13, 1989 issue of USA
Today. An article on page 3A trumpeted that "Black Women
Support 'Roe.'" What was the size of the sample population
they examined to arrive at this conclusion? Exactly four women
including Faye Wattleton, then-president of Planned Parenthood, and
Patricia Tyson of the 'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights!
Other elements of the pro-abort movement use statistical chicanery to
"prove" that most "women of color" are
"pro-choice." These dishonest methods are identical to those
used in general polls, as described in Chapter 76, "Public Opinion
Polls on Abortion."
For example, the results of one public opinion survey of 1,157
"women of color" (Black, Latina, Asian and Native American)
conducted by the Communications Consortium "showed that 75 percent
of the respondents were pro-choice." Supposedly, only 19 percent
thought that abortion should be completely illegal.[6] Naturally, the
question offered in the poll was "Under what circumstances should
abortion remain legal?," and the allowable answers were "Under
no circumstances," "Under all circumstances," and
"Under some circumstances." Then the pro-aborts lumped the
last two categories together to make their "pro-choice
majority." What they didn't say, of course, is that a "woman
of color" who believed that abortion should only be legal to save
the life of the mother was classified as "pro-choice" under
this dishonest system.
Parallel #4: Rise of
Pro-Oppression Churches.
How many times have learned clergymen told us that abortion is too
messy, embarrassing, or inappropriate for action? How many times have
they wailed that they may lose their precious tax exemption if they take
concrete action? And how many 'Catholic' and so-called 'Christian'
priests and ministers have simply come out in favor of "a woman's
right to kill?"
In the days of slavery, many churches were weak and equivocating in
their opposition to slavery. One Methodist conference found that slavery
was "... not a moral evil nor a proper subject for proper action of
the Church."[7]
Not surprisingly, the pro-abortion United Methodist Church takes the
same position today regarding the preborn.
The Presbyterian Church "... insisted it [slavery] was a
political question and will not legislate against it."[8]
Today, the Presbyterian Church, USA takes the same position towards
our unborn brothers and sisters.
150 years ago, large numbers of people (usually, those believed in
the inerrancy of the Bible) saw the evil in the stands of the mainline
churches, and broke off to form their own churches and organizations,
just as they are doing today. These modern groups have names like
Methodists for Life, the Jewish Anti-Abortion League, and the National
Organization of Episcopalians for Life (NOEL).
These organizations, and those Jews and Christians who believe
likewise, will one day stand before the Judge, who may ask them; "I
was being torn limb from limb by suction machines; dismembered by
surgical cutting tools, and scalded alive by saline; and you saw, and
came to My rescue."
They will ask "When did we do this for You, Master?"
And He will most likely answer, "Just as you did this unto the
least of My brethren, that also did you do unto Me."
The positions of most religious denominations and the addresses of a
number pro-life religious organizations may be found in Chapter 42,
"Church Positions on Abortion."
Parallel #5: Legal
Underpinnings.
The issue in the Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sanford
was not whether the slave Dred Scott was a human being, but whether or
not he could sue as a citizen in a Federal Court. He was denied this
right by the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that slaves were
not citizens.
Although slaves were referred to as "human beings" 21 times
in the Court's written majority opinion, they were also frequently
referred to as "non-persons" a critical distinction. The
Supreme Court set the representative power of a Black person equal to
3/5 that of a White person.
The National Abortion Rights Action League and other pro-abortion
groups apply the same distinction to the preborn; they acknowledge that
the preborn are living and are human beings, but are not whole
persons. For example, the National Abortion Rights Action League claims
that "It is a fact that the fetus is a human life,
but when do we accept that developing human life as a fellow human
being? That question can only be answered according to our individual
beliefs."[9]
This twisted 'logic,' of course, has been carried down to the state
court level in both the slavery and abortion issues.
In State v. Cheatwood, the Supreme Court of South Carolina
ruled that
The criminal offense of assault and battery cannot at common law,
be committed on the person of a slave for ... he is mere chattel, and
his right of personal protection belongs to his master ... A slave is
not generally regarded as legally capable of being within the peace of
the state.[10]
In a parallel situation, a drunk driver in Michigan crashed head-on
into a car carrying a woman pregnant with a baby that was due to be
delivered in just two weeks. The baby died, the American Civil Liberties
Union took up the cause of the drunk driver, and the mother could not
recover a cent in damages, because, as the Court ruled in 1988, she had
not suffered any injury and, since her 8-1/2 month preborn baby was not
a human being, he had suffered no injury either!
The ACLU correctly assumed that, if the woman had been allowed to
recover damages, such a decision would tacitly acknowledge the
personhood of the unborn, and would pose an unacceptable threat to
abortion 'rights' through legal precedent.
Parallel #6: Political
History.
Lincoln and Reagan.
Although they perhaps are the most trivial of the many parallels
between slavery and abortion, purely historical coincidences of a
political nature are nonetheless fascinating.
Both Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan supported the status quo
at one time in their lives. When Lincoln issued his Emancipation
Proclamation on September 22, 1862, it had virtually no actual impact at
the time. It took a civil war and the 13th Amendment to the United
States Constitution on December 18, 1865 to free the slaves.
Ronald Reagan, on January 14, 1988, issued his Personhood
Proclamation, which was totally ignored by the media and even by most
anti- and pro-abortion activists. However, it will inevitably one day be
cherished as a landmark document which freed an even larger category of
persons from oppression than did the Emancipation Proclamation.
The text of the Personhood Proclamation is shown in Figure 86-1.
Hopefully we will not need an abortion civil war to secure a Human
Life Amendment, although some activists on both sides of the issue
predict such a conflict.
FIGURE 86-1
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN'S PERSONHOOD PROCLAMATION
By the President of the United States of America:
A PROCLAMATION
America has given a great gift to the world, a gift that drew upon
the accumulated wisdom derived from centuries of experiments in
self-government, a gift that has irrevocably changed humanity's
future. Our gift is twofold: the declaration, as a cardinal principle
of all just law, of the God-given, unalienable rights possessed by
every human being; and the example of our determination to secure
those rights and to defend them against every challenge through the
generations. Our declaration and defense of our rights have made us
and kept us free and have sent a tide of hope and inspiration around
the globe.
One of those inalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence
affirms so eloquently, is the right to life. In the 15 years since the
Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, however, America's
unborn have been denied their right to life. Among the tragic and
unspeakable results in the past decade and a half have been the loss
of life of 22 million infants before birth; the pressure and anguish
of countless women and girls who are driven to abortion; and a
cheapening of our respect for the human person and the sanctity of
human life.
We are told that we may not interfere with abortion. We are told
that we may not "impose our morality" on those who wish to
allow or participate in the taking of the life of infants before
birth; yet no one calls it "imposing morality" to prohibit
the taking of life after people are born. We are told as well that
there exists a "right" to end the lives of unborn children;
yet no one can explain how such a right can exist in stark
contradiction to each person's fundamental right to life.
That right to life belongs equally to babies in the womb, babies
born handicapped, and the elderly or infirm. That we have killed the
unborn for 15 years does not nullify this right, nor could any number
of killings ever do so. The inalienable right to life is found not
only in the Declaration of Independence but also in the Constitution
that every President is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend. Both
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no person shall be
deprived of life without due process of law.
All medical and scientific evidence increasingly affirms that
children before birth share all the basic attributes of human
personality that they in fact are persons. Modern medicine treats
unborn children as patients. Yet, as the Supreme Court itself has
noted, the decision in Roe v. Wade rested upon an earlier state
of medical technology. The law of the land in 1988 should recognize
all of the medical evidence.
Our Nation cannot continue down the path of abortion, so radically
at odds with our history, our heritage, and our concepts of justice.
This sacred legacy, and the well-being and the future of our country,
demand that protection of the innocents must be guaranteed and that
the personhood of the unborn be declared and defended throughout our
land. In legislation introduced at my request in the First Session of
the 100th Congress, I have asked the Legislative branch to declare the
"humanity of the unborn child and the compelling interest of the
several states to protect the life of each person before birth."
This duty to declare on so fundamental a matter falls to the Executive
as well. By this Proclamation I hereby do so.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of
America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare the
inalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of
conception until natural death, and I do proclaim, ordain, and declare
that I will take care that the Constitution and laws of the United
States are faithfully executed for the protection of America's unborn
children. Upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice,
warranted by the Constitution, I invoke the considerate judgement of
mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God. I also proclaim
Sunday, January 17, 1988, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I
call upon the citizens of this blessed land to gather on that day in
their homes and places of worship to give thanks for the gift of life
they enjoy and to reaffirm their commitment to the dignity of every
human being and the sanctity of every human life.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of
January, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-eight,
and of the Independence of the United States of America the two
hundred and twelfth.
Ronald Reagan
Reference: Ronald Reagan's Presidential
Personhood Proclamation was published in the Federal Register,
Presidential Documents, Volume 53, No. 11, Tuesday, January 19, 1988.
Proclamation 5761 of January 14, 1988. FR Document 88-1081.
Democrats and Republicans.
Amusingly, the Democratic Party was solidly pro-slavery.
Abolitionists finally had to join the Liberty Party, the first
anti-slavery political party, which was organized in Albany in 1840. The
Liberty Party was renamed the Free Soil Party at a 1848 Buffalo
convention, and was once again renamed the Republican Party in 1856.
Today, once again, the Republican Party defends the fatherless and the
oppressed, while the Democratic Party enthusiastically embraces every
type of perversion and evil, including the greatest evil of all,
abortion.
Lessons We Can Learn from
the Abolitionists.
Introduction.
Pro-life activists have been labeled "The New
Abolitionists" by their defenders in the press and in the court
system. However, we can only live up to this high ideal if we succeed in
learning the lessons that our spiritual forefathers passed down to us.
Be Single Issue!
The so-called "Seamless Garment" is a deadly trap laid for
pro-lifers by the opposition. This concept states that you can't really
be 'pro-life' unless you are anti-apartheid, anti-racism, anti-sexism,
anti-old growth logging, anti-nuke, anti-heterosexism, and a score of
other 'antis.' Longtime pro-life activists know that, if we get tangled
up in all of these other issues, we will dilute our strength, lose our
effectiveness, and therefore never win our battle.
This slippery and dangerous concept is described in Chapter 84.
The Abolitionists had to learn this lesson as well. Pro-slavery
people condemned them for being 'single-issue,' just as pro-abortionists
condemn pro-lifers now. In reply, Theodore Weld stated that "The
sin of slavery in this country is omni-present. In the present crises,
it not only overshadows all others, but involves all others, and absorbs
them into itself. It is my deliberate conviction that revivals, moral
reforms, etc., must and will remain stationary until the temple is
cleansed!"[11]
This is perfectly true of the abortion issue today. Abortion is
certainly what is stalling revival in our country.
Be Implacable!
Compromise is death. Compromise is what got our country into its
present mess not only with abortion, but with homosexuality, drugs,
pornography, and now euthanasia.
The Abolitionists recognized the absolutely essential quality of
implacability. We should not be at all concerned (or surprised) that we
will be unpopular with the press and the public if we take an
uncompromising stand; after all, our soft and sickly society thrives
on compromise, 'deals,' and deceit. We may even be shunned by our
co-workers, friends, family, and others who call themselves
'Christians.'
This should not matter to us. It did not matter to the Abolitionists!
James Birney stated "that slavery shall cease to exist, absolutely,
unconditionally, and irrevocably." William Lloyd Garrison thundered
that "I will be harsh as truth, as uncompromising as justice. On
this subject I do not wish to think, speak, or write with
moderation."[12]
William Seward said in 1858 that
The United States must and will sooner or later become either
entirely a slave-holding nation or entirely a free-labor
nation."[7] This also rings true with abortion no checkerboard
laws for us! As long as babies are dying anywhere, they are all in
danger. As Martin Luther King so ironically said, "Injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
It is different, of course, for those on the defensive. Perhaps the
pro-abortionists would be able to delay their inevitable defeat if they
would compromise even slightly; if they would cooperate in the banning
of sex-selection and third-trimester abortions, for example, or if they
would allow parental consent or informed consent laws.
But they will not. They resist even discussion on these points. They
agitate to close down all Crisis Pregnancy Centers, they try to ban
pro-life advertising, they aggressively sue pro-lifers for millions of
dollars, they obtain injunctions to keep sidewalk counselors from even
speaking to their victims ... and so, the outrage will continue to build
until the overwhelming evil and hypocrisy of abortion and its minions is
at last exposed and overthrown!
Look to God for Guidance.
The Abolitionists ignored the edicts of the Supreme Court, the press,
and the public, and carried on the fight. They knew that God gave all
people inherent dignity, and that all people are equal in His sight.
Abolitionist Gerrit Smith said that "I deny that decisions of any,
even the highest earthly tribunal, against fundamental, unchangeable,
internal human rights are ever, even for a moment, to be regarded as
final and unalterable."[13]
This statement is even more true of the Right to Life than it was of
slavery. We must take this lesson to heart.
Be Prepared to Sacrifice.
No goal is really worth the effort if it does not require hard work
and sacrifice. Abolitionist Charles Beecher knew this well, as do
today's rescuers;
Disobey this [Fugitive Slave] law. If you ever dreamed of obeying
it, repent before God and ask his forgiveness. I counsel no violence,
I suggest no war-like measures of resistance, I incite no man to deeds
of blood. I speak as a minister of the Prince of Peace ... If you are
fined or imprisoned, wear gladly your chains. For on the Last Day, you
will be rewarded for your fidelity to God. Do not think it any
disgrace to accept such penalty. It is the devil and the devil's
people who enact, enforce, or respect such penalties.[14]
References: Slavery Analogy to Abortion.
[1] Jesse Jackson, a formerly pro-life politician who gave up his
principles for personal gain. Quoted in Catholic Twin Circle,
April 9, 1989.
[2] Karl Marx, quoted in Francis Canavan. "From Tragedy to
Farce." The Human Life Review, Spring 1987, pages 17 to 29.
[3] R.R. Basler (editor). The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln,
pages 547 to 549.
[4] Simon Clough. A Candid Appeal to the Citizens of the United
States, Proving that the Doctrines Advanced and the Measures Pursued by
the Abolitionists Relative to the Subject of Emancipation, are
Inconsistent with the Teachings and Directions of the Bible and that
those Clergymen Engaged in the Dissemination of these Principles Should
be Immediately Dismissed by their Respective Congregations as False
Teachers. New York, 1834. Also see Richard H. Colfax. Evidence
Against the Views of the Abolitionists, Consisting of Physical and Moral
Proofs, of the Natural Inferiority of the Negroes. New York, 1833.
[5] W.P.N. Fitzgerald. A Scriptural View of Slavery and Abolition.
New Haven, 1839. Also see R. Yearson. The Amenability of Northern
Incendiaries ... Charleston, 1835, page 5.
[6] "Poll Says Most Women of Color Are Pro-Choice." WomenWise
(A publication of the Concord Feminist Health Center), Summer 1992, page
4.
[7] James G. Birney. The American Churches: The Bulwarks of
American Slavery. London, 1840, pages 15 to 18.
[8] Dwight L. Dumond (editor). Letters of James Gillespie Birney,
1831-1857. Volume I, page 345.
[9] Looseleaf booklet entitled "Organizing for Action."
Prepared by Vicki Z. Kaplan for the National Abortion Rights Action
League, 250 West 57th Street, New York, N.Y. 10019. 51 pages, no date.
[10] W.R.Hill. Reports of Cases at Law, Argued and Determined in
the Court of Appeals of South Carolina (3 volumes, Charleston,
1857), II, page 459.
[11] Lewis Tappan. "Letter to Theodore Dwight Weld, Angelina
Grimke Weld, and Sarah Grimke." November 17, 1835.
[12] "Constitution and Address of the Kentucky Society for
Gradual Relief of the State from Slavery." Olive Branch - Extra,
December 24, 1833.
[13] Gerrit Smith. Abstract of the Arguments on the Fugitive Slave
Law, Made by Gerrit Smith, in Syracuse, June 1852, on the Trial of Henry
W. Allen ... , page 26.
[14] Charles Beecher. The Duty of Disobedience to Wicked Laws, a
Sermon on the Fugitive Slave Law. New York, 1851, page 14.
Further Reading: Slavery Analogy to Abortion.
Father James Tunstead Burtchaell. Rachel Weeping: The Case
Against Abortion.
New York: Harper & Row, 1982. 381 pages. Five essays, marked
with crystal-clear reasoning and fully documented, addressing several
major arguments against abortion, including the Holocaust analogy, the
slavery analogy, and point-by-point rebuttals of pro-abortion slogans.
Of particular interest is the first essay, which uses pro-abortion
sources to show how damaging abortion is to women.
Lewis E. Lehrman. "The Right to Life and the Restoration of
the American Republic."
Originally published in National Review and now available as an
educational reprint from American Collegians for Life, Post Office Box
1112, Washington, DC 20013.
J.C. Willke, M.D. Abortion and Slavery: History Repeats.
Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia
24174, telephone: (703) 586-4898. A well-written comparison between the
slavery issue of the mid-1850s and the abortion issue of today. Dr.
Willke finds that the organizations, the slogans and logic, and the
political maneuvering are remarkably similar. Most of this chapter's
material is drawn from this book.
© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111
This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia published
by American Life League.
|
