History has shown that the persecuters must dehumanize the victims before ill-treatment is made permissible. Hitler called the Jews “pigs”. Slave owners called blacks “animals”. They’re all labels which reduce the inherent dignity present in a human person, which free the perpetrator to act out their ill motives without public outcry or the deserved consequences (at least in the short term or in this life).
Here in the case of abortion, they dehumanize the unborn child, the fetus (Latin for “offspring”). The motive seems obvious: sex. “For abortion is backup birth control, and birth control is the demand to have sex without having babies.” (Peter Kreeft. A Refutation of Moral Relativism). The recent resignation of a virulently pro-abortion Governor is a case in point – he was involved in high-level prostitution. The gross irony is that it is the the very same people who hold themselves up to be the self-less champions for “women’s rights”. Thus, they manage to dehumanize the mother and the child – making the former into a sexual object to be toyed with, and killing the latter – all the while making themselves appear as the angels of light (II Corinthians 11:14). It’s no wonder that Kreeft would write: “Plainly put, abortion comes from Hell and it can lead us to Hell if not repented” (Peter Kreeft. Human Personhood Begins at Conception).
I posted the following for a Being Frank thread discussing the recent anti-pro-life article on NZ Herald (not only is it pro-abortion, it specifically attacks Voice for Life), and in support of Brendan Malone of Family Life International:
Thanks for being pro-active, Brendan (as well as pro-life). It’s good – nay, a God-send – to have a voice like yours for those powerless to speak.
I agree 110% about “the most important question of all – is a human embryo a living human person?”. Really, all the issues on abortion comes down to this one question. As Peter Kreeft points out in Human Personhood Begins at Conception, there are only four possibilities:
1. that it is not a person and we know that,
2. that it is a person and we know that,
3. that it is a person but we do not know that, and
4. that it is not a person and we do not know that.
As he writes in The Apple Argument Against Abortion, abortion was legalized in the US by appealing to uncertainty, which would be 3 or 4.
This is ridiculous, because the only permissible case is #1. For the other possibilities, abortion would be in each case:
3. Man slaughter.
4. Criminal negligence.
There is no justifiable position in the absence of evidence proving non-personhood of the fetus. In fact, the medical texts prior to the abortion controversy accepted that life began at conception.
Given the above, I have to agree with Brendan that Mr. McCarten’s article on the NZ Herald is “astounding on account of its lack of reason and logic, and in the end it reads as shallow pro-abortion propaganda and fear-mongering.”