The run for the Presidency is in full swing. Caucuses and primaries will dominate the news. Debates and polls will lead news stories. And deep in the middle of the debates, the rhetoric, and speeches, will be the issue of abortion. Have no doubts, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) will be hot in the middle of it. Trying to get their candidates elected or re-elected. Or at least making sure the pro-life candidates don't get elected or re-elected. One way which they will do that is by slinging slogans to and fro. Slogans which sound sweet, but are, in fact, empty and non-sensical if one only take the time to really look at them.

    The one we're most likely see during an election year is: "You anti-choice people are single-issue fanatics." Or any number of other variations. Obviously the notion seems logical. What with concerns about the economy, social security, education, etc. to vote for a candidate based on one issue would seem ridiculous. We have kids killing kids in schools, we can't afford to make abortion the central issue.

    The problem is that, firstly, pro-abortion groups make abortion a central issue, why shouldn't we? They've already made abortion rights a 'litmus' test for candidates, Supreme Court Justices, etc. After all, Robert Bork was refused approval as a Supreme Court Justice 'solely' because of his position on abortion. Nothing else. But this isn't simply a case of 'they do, so we can too!' No, we need to do it for more serious reasons.

    A nation, poor and in chaos was tearing itself apart. There were many issues at hand. The economy, education, employment, etc. One was expected to look at the overall picture and not a single issue. The candicate they voted for turned the country around. Employment was up, prosperity was on the rise. 'Happy Days were here again!' Except... The candidate had one 'flaw' which could be overlooked for the good of the nation. A flaw which could be kept under control. That candidate was Adolf Hilter and his flaw was anti-semitism.

    Why one issue when the issue is abortion? Because without life, there is no need for education, employment, social security. Without life, there is no need to guarantee liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Without life, you have no need of other 'freedoms'. Yours is the 'freedom' of the grave.

    Another fun slogan is "Hitler and his Nazis were anti-choice, too." Nothing could be further from the truth. True, good 'Aryan' women were encouraged to have children, whether in or out of wedlock. In fact, one could even receive a 'Mother's Medal' for having a certain number of children. However, for those 'less desirable', abortion was not only encouraged, but in many cases mandatory.

    In fact, this was right in line with the view of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. "Every marriage certificate could be accompanied with instructions concerning the high responsibility of parenthood, and the conditions which should pre-exist before the great enterprise of bringing a new human being into existence should be undertaken, and measures would be taken to exclude from parentage the manifestly and permanently unfit." ("Mrs. Sanger Says Superman Is the Aim of Birth Control"; New York Times 31 Jan. 1922) Mrs. Sanger and Herr Hitler shared each others views on eugenics and who were considered 'manifestly and permanently unfit' to be parents.

    This last slogan works well with the slogans "Freedom of choice!"; "Abortion is my Constitutional right!"; "Abortion is perfectly legal." Etc.

    Can we presume that their interpretation of freedom of choice would also mean that we are all free to choose whatever we want as well? Are we free to drive 55 mph in a 25 mph zone? Are we free to yell fire in a crowded theatre? Are we free to 'choose' to eliminate anyone or anything which we perceive as blocking us from our wants and desires?

    We may also ask where in the US Constitution, or in any of it's Amendments, it gives them the right to kill the unborn? Roe V. Wade is NOT a Constitutional Amendment. Even the Justices couldn't find this 'Right to abortion.'

    "Justice Blackmun said that "We feel that the right [to abortion] is located in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty," but it might be instead "... in the Ninth Amendment's concept of personal liberty. This unseemly thrashing around in search of an abortion right that had heretofore remained undetected for more than 200 years was subsequently exposed by the (Legal Times); "Looking back on that argument, [Sarah Weddington] laughs as she recalls that Justice Potter Stewart asked her where in the Constitution she found the right [to abortion] for which she had so fervently argued. "Any place we find it will be okay with you, right?" Stewart asked Weddington."[ Legal Times, March 4, 1985, page A35] (Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia, CHAPTER 16; PRO-ABORTION SLOGANS AND HOW TO HANDLE THEM)

    In fact, the same arguments they use to support abortion was used over a hundred years ago to support slavery. As G.K. Chesteron wrote: "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." - (A Short History of England, Ch.10) Imagine the politician who said, "I'm personally opposed to slavery but not opposed to someone else owning one." We'd laugh him out of office!!!!

    We also have the scientific slant slogans. "We really don't know when life begins." And "The fetus isn't really human or a person." If I were to destroy an eagle egg, or some other 'pre-born' endangered species, I could be fined over 500 dollars and spend approximately a year in prison. Why? It really isn't an eagle yet. Right? My sister in law was pregnant with her first child. When I wished her a happy first mother's day, she 'corrected' me: "I'm not a mother yet. I'm a 'potential' mother." I had to try and point out that, unless she just badly overate, she had a human child in her. The chromosomes meant it was a human. Not a potential human. The child may die before it's born due to a tragedy, sickness, etc, but it's a human child. It has a heart which beats, (and now, we see it even has hands to grab) By any definition of the word, it's alive and human.

    But like the Nazi's before them, the pro-abortion forces need to 'de-humanize' their victims. So we hear Carl Sagan call the unborn human fetus a 'parasite'. And of course, anyone can remove a parasite, can't they! Here are some other neat abortion slogans; "No mandatory motherhood!" "Every child a wanted child!"

    The first one conjures all sorts of images. Mandatory motherhood? Well, if a woman 'chooses' to have sex and if, as a consequence of that 'choice' she becomes pregnant, she already is a mother. It wasn't forced on her, she chose it!. (There are other consequences of sexual contact besides pregnancy, some of which can't be 'aborted' in any way. Again, their 'death sentence is self imposed, no one forced it on them.)

    In fact, it fits with the nonsensical views of some pro-abortionists. "Why do you hate women? How many women died today, Mr. Bush? ... We don't think the public knows the Family Planning clinics are closed. We don't think they know we've got a Ceaucescu sitting in the White House. In fact I think we should use that word because this is forced breeding. What else is there, did we all bemoan what happened there? We're doing the same thing, the Ceaucescus are right here today. We have forced pregnancy ..."[ Ellie Smeal of the Fund for a Feminist 'Majority,' at a talk entitled "RU-486, NORPLANT, and Title X." Recorded live at the 1991 national conference of the National Organization for Women, July 5-7, 1991 in New York City, New York.]

    You'd think the government had secret programs with women lashed to tables being forcibly impregnated! I guess when we have people killed in auto accidents because of someone's 'choice' to drive too fast or the wrong way, it's a government plot to have them killed?

    And of course, the notion that ! "Every child (be) a wanted child!" is absurd. Of course every child is a wanted child. Just look at the list of those wanting to adopt? Many have to wait almost 5 years. And if they can afford it, will travel overseas in order to adopt. These aren't just the 'healthy' white babies we hear about either. Many are of different races and/or nationalities. Many with birth defects and illnesses.

    Let's be honest, the pro-abortion rhetoric is just that, empty rhetoric. It's designed to draw attention away from what abortion really is, anti-woman, anti-life, and anti-family and make it 'appear' to be 'Pro-family, pro-child, pro-choice.'

    If they can't convince others to follow their rhetoric, they'll at least try to water down and divert the opposition. "Anti-choice people are violent, single-issue fanatics."

    So, as happened in 1992 and 1996, people who would normally be opposed to abortion voted for Clinton because "we have to worry about more than just one issue." Just as Hilter's 'flaw' was overlooked for the sake of 'other issues' the pro-abortionist wants us to overlook them as well. And just as Hitler's 'flaw' meant the death of millions, Jews, Catholic, infirmed, elderly, handicapped:

• "We are going to have to face, as China has faced, the policy of controlling the size of families, and to assume that we can go on without facing this responsibility is totally irresponsible ... I consider the Chinese government's [population control] policy among the most intelligent in the world ... it is a policy limited to the heavily overpopulated areas and it is an attempt to feed the people of China. I find it very intelligent." Molly Yard, former president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), on the March 1989 "Oprah Winfrey Show."

• "China's population is so enormous that if they didn't control it, they wouldn't be able to feed their people. The Chinese government doesn't coerce people. They use education. It's very clear when you're there. You can't miss it. Even if you can't read the language, you can't miss it." Molly Yard at an April 7, 1989 press conference, quoted by Mary Meehan. "Women as Guinea Pigs." (National Catholic Register), April 30, 1989, page 4.

• "The main difference between China and other densely populated developing countries ... may be that the Chinese have had the foresight to make projections of their population and resources and the courage to translate their findings into policy." Lester R. Brown, president of the Worldwatch Institute, (New York Times), May 8, 1985.

• "[China's coercive population-control program is] remarkably vigorous and effective [and China should be acknowledged] as a leader in a grand experiment in the management of population and natural resources." Zero Population Growth (ZPG) founder Paul Ehrlich. National Geographic Magazine, December 1988, page 922.

• "If parenthood is a right, population control is impossible. If parenthood is only a privilege, and if parents see themselves as trustees of the germ plasm and guardians of the rights of future generations, then there is hope for mankind ... Though coercion is a dirty word to most liberals now, it need not be forever ... Its dirtiness can be cleansed away by saying it over and over without apology or embarrassment." Garrett Hardin. "Parenthood: Right or Privilege?" Science Magazine. Also quoted in "'Voluntary' Sterilization?" ALL About Issues, March 1983, page 30.

• "We are making birth control compulsory because we have compulsory death control, and we have found you can't have one without the other ...Having compulsory death control, we must have compulsory birth control, limiting every family to two children."Colorado governor Richard Lamm, quoted in "'Voluntary' Sterilization?" ALL About Issues, March 1983, page 30.

• "Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion and determine when and how it should be employed. At present, the means available are compulsory sterilization and compulsory abortion. Perhaps someday a way of enforcing compulsory birth control will be feasible." Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher, former President, International Planned Parenthood Federation, Medical World News, June 6, 1969.

Pax Christi, Pat