Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Thinking of responding to this pro-life editorial, but not sure where to start.

reiii · 01-27-2005, 01:23 PM

From my school paper the Vanderbilt Hustler, available online at http://www.vanderbilthustler.com/vne.../41f56899dc4db

Quote:

Opinion Thursday, January 27, 2005

The American Holocaust

By Michael Wilt
January 24, 2005

Those who support abortion are, without question, tantamount to those who stood idly by while the Nazi regime in Germany slaughtered millions. It is no different, except our holocaust of the unborn is indiscriminate. It doesn't matter if they're black or white, male or female; any un-born baby -- human being -- is legally allowed to be murdered.

I know the reaction I'm going to get from this article. Outrage. Indignation. There will be women on this campus who will probably never speak to me again. So let it be that way, I guess. I don't blame pro-choice people for the murders themselves, but they do enable it by either directly or indirectly supporting the so-called "right to choose."

One of the most compelling arguments I've ever heard against abortion "rights" is this: in the Declaration of Independence -- you know, the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness part -- which comes first? Life does. Without life, without the ability to live, what good is happiness or liberty going to do for you?

A lot of pro-choice advocates will say that the baby is not alive. As President Reagan once said, "abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born." What right is it of ours to say they are not "alive" and that therefore a woman's right to "choose" is paramount? With the scientific evidence overwhelmingly pointing to the fact that the unborn feel pain, have dreams, talk and do a multitude of other human behaviors, how can we brush all this aside simply because, as disgracefully as it may sound, the left-minded citizens in this country see the unborn as nothing more than a parasite?

The 32nd anniversary of the most atrocious Supreme Court decision in history -- even the abomination of the Dred Scott decision seems like decent reasoning in comparison -- has, as usual, sparked the debate for public awareness once again. Every January we gather at rallies or in our homes to protest or celebrate America's holocaust.

Finally, we have a president who not only reinstated Reagan's Mexico City policy (according to usaid.gov, it requires non-governmental organizations to "agree as a condition of their receipt of federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations"), but also signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003. Now we have an opportunity with the open seats on the Supreme Court for justices who will uphold the Constitution and, when the time comes, will reverse Roe v. Wade.

I'm not blind; I know that women will continue to get illegal abortions. But the point is that instead of 1,500,000 abortions, rather, murders a year, that number will be drastically reduced, the doctors who do break the law will go to jail, and the mothers who try to harm their child will also go to jail. In comparison, the welfare queens who have 15 children at least are using my tax money to, hopefully, keep another human being alive.

It's not going to be easy. The powerful abortion enthusiast lobby has a stranglehold over the Democratic Party (and as we see, its views on morality and issues like abortion played so well in 2004) and they'll try to block judges who don't support abortion in the Senate. While President Bush advocates freedom abroad for oppressed peoples of the world, perhaps we should also take a look inward and realize we are conducting the greatest mass murder on the entire planet. I am confident that with the help of God and the wise votes of the American people, we will end this 1973 travesty once and for all.

--Michael Wilt is a Junior in the College of Arts and Science.

Wilt could probably argue for something as sensible as the existence of roads and it would still infuriate me. Aside from the tasteless title/ main analogy of the paper, anyone see anything particularly glaring?