The Writings of
Vasu Murti

Email
vm@vasumurti.org

Human Rights - Social Justice - Animal Rights
Peace - Love - Compassion - Kindness - Gentleness
Religion - Soul - Spirit - Knowledge - Wisdom
Politics - Science - Environment - Vegan - Vegetarian
God - Humans - Animals

| Home | Books | Publications | Articles | The Author |

Publications

THE NEXT DISTRACTION
Politics and Passions - Winter 1995-96

Part 33
"The Slaughter of the Innocents"

We really live in a secular society. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a physician who presided over 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the abortion issue, wrote in his 1979 book Aborting America:

"The U.S. statutes against abortion have a non-sectarian history. They were put on the books when Catholics were a politically insignificant minority...even the Protestant clergy was not a major factor in these laws. Rather, the laws were an achievement of the American Medical Association...

"Traditionally, religion opposes abortion because ‘the Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away.’ What about atheists like myself who do not believe in the existence of a personal God? I think that abortion policy ought not be beholden to a sectarian creed…In the case of abortion, however, we can and must decide on the biological evidence…without resorting to scriptures, revelations, creeds, hierarchical decrees, or belief in God. Even if God does not exist, the fetus does."

In 1827, Von Baer determined fertilization to be the starting point of life. By the 1850s, medical communities were advocating legislation to protect the unborn. In 1859, the American Medical Association protested legislation which only protected the child after "quickening."

A 1964 New Jersey court ruling required a pregnant woman to undergo blood transfusions, even if her religion forbade it, for the sake of her unborn child. One could argue therefore, apart from religion, that recognizing the rights of the unborn, like the rights of blacks, women, lesbians and gays, children, animals, etc. is a sign of secular social progress.

In one anti-abortion pamphlet, Dr. Jean Garton states that religion did not discover when life begins, the biologists did. The fact that religious people may oppose abortion does not make abortion a "religious" issue any more than the fact that religious people may oppose drunk driving makes drunk driving a "religious" issue. In her book, Who Broke the Baby?, Dr. Garton compares discrimination against the unborn to other kinds of genocide:

"By placing unborn human beings outside the protection of the law, it became possible to deny them basic rights. This is not the first time in our history that we have made a distinction between the biological category of living human beings and the legal concept of ‘person.’ At one time in our history American Indians were not legal persons because we did not grant them the protection of our Constitution. Thus we were able to take by force anything which belonged to them.

"Usually what we wanted was their land, so we denied them the right to property. Next in our national list of non-persons were black slaves, declared to be chattel and property of their masters as a result of the Dred Scott decision of 1857...In 1973, another group of human beings was added to the non-person list: the unborn."

From an animal rights perspective, Dr. Garton makes the mistake of grounding ‘human rights’ or ‘personhood’ in membership in the human species. Removing the barriers of species discrimination, we find the two are not necessarily synonymous. Ingrid Newkirk, Executive Director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), observed:

"You cannot find a relevant attribute in human beings that doesn’t exist in animals as well...the only difference between humans and other animals (is) a difference of degree, not kind. If you ground any concept of human rights in a particular attribute, then animals will have to be included. Animals have rights."

All ethical systems, or delineations of legal personhood, will, by their very nature, include certain classes of beings and exclude others from moral concern. The animal rights movement insists there are no morally relevant differences between humans and nonhuman animals as far as everyday ethics are concerned, and therefore, denying animals rights is discrimination. The animal rights ethic recognizes sentience or the capacity for suffering and enjoyment as the morally relevant criteria for personhood.

To argue against abortion with an animal rights activist, then, one must argue that there is no morally relevant difference between killing a member of a sentient species at either an insentient (e.g. zygote, embryo, fetus) or a sentient (infant, adolescent, adult) stage of development.

One popular argument against the recognizing the potential sentience of a member of a sentient species, genetically distinct from either parent, even at an insentient stage of development, is that if we recognize potential sentience as a basis for rights, we must then oppose all forms of contraception and perhaps even sexual abstinence, since this also means the destruction of potentially sentient life.

Sperm and egg, like saliva and other bodily excretions, are genetically identical to male and female respectively, while a newly formed zygote is genetically distinct from both parents. There is no environment anywhere in which an individual sperm or an egg cell could be placed and made to grow into an embryo, infant, etc…Doing so would be as absurd as placing a nonfertile egg into an incubator and expecting a chicken to hatch! Eating a fertile chicken egg effectively kills a chicken. Similar reasoning prompted the federal government to enact a law imposing a $5,000 fine for destroying any fertilized bald eagle egg.

"Is birth control an abortion?"

"Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun."

---Planned Parenthood pamphlet
August 1963

While there may be religious reasons to oppose masturbation, contraception, oral sex, divorce, fornication, homosexuality, etc…there are no rational, secular arguments against such practices.

Similarly, the argument that any cell from one’s body is potentially sentient, since it may be cloned, is subject to the same kind of scrutiny and reasoning. Only after an ordinary cell has been prepared for cloning and is starting to develop could one make use of arguments involving development and potential sentience to call for its protection. Before preparation for cloning, such an ordinary cell is morally equivalent to sperm or egg before fertilization.

Many of the early American feminists, including Lucy Stone, Amelia Bloomer, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were connected with the l9th century animal welfare movement. Together, with anti-slavery editor Horace Greeley, they would meet to toast, "Women’s Rights and Vegetarianism."

In 1907, Flora T. Neff asked, "Why do we make one reform topic a hobby and forget all others? Mercy,...Vegetarianism, Woman’s Suffrage and Peace would make Old Earth a paradise, and yet the majority advocate but one, if any, of these." The original feminist tradition was also morally opposed to abortion.

According to contemporary "prolife feminist" Mary Krane Derr, "The debate raging over abortion today is not the first one in American history; there was one during the Victorian era."

Derr writes that despite the large monetary loss involved, The Revolution, the suffragist paper put out by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton refused to run ads for patent medicines because these were frequently thinly disguised abortifacients.

A similar policy was practiced by Woodhull’s and Claflin’s Weekly, the paper published by free love advocates Victoria Woodhull and Tennessee Claflin. The Weekly constantly attacked Madame Restell, a well-known New York City abortionist. Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to attempt to run for President, was a strong opponent of abortion.

The Weekly (December 24, 1870) proclaimed, "The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus."

According to Woodhull, "Men must no longer insult all womanhood by saying that freedom means the degradation of woman. Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth." (Evening Standard, November 17, 1875)

"Victorian feminists," Derr observes, "were highly critical of Victorian sexual ethics. They affirmed the value of sex for pleasure and communication as well as procreation, for men and women alike...they celebrated motherhood itself as a uniquely female power and strength which deserved genuine reverence."

According to Derr, "From early in the l9th century, Americans -- even lay people -- were exposed to enough information about embryology to enable them to make a critical and ethically significant distinction between contraception and abortion: the former practice did not terminate a human life but the latter one did."

In The Radical Remedy in Social Science (1886) feminist and civil libertarian Edward Bond Foote crusaded for public and legal acceptance of contraception, insisting it would not only promote the well-being of women, but that it would also reduce the destruction of unborn children, which he called "a wastefulness of human life."

Susan B. Anthony called abortion "child-murder" and insisted, "We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil...It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed." Anthony recognized that one of the root causes of abortion was male exploitation of women: "All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy." (The Revolution, July 8, 1869)

Like Susan B. Anthony, Matilda Gage also held men accountable: "(This) subject lies deeper down in woman’s wrongs than any other...I hesitate not to assert that most of (the responsibility for) this crime lies at the door of the male sex." (The Revolution, April 9, 1868)

Elizabeth Cady Stanton classified abortion along with the killing of newborns as "infanticide." (The Revolution, February 5, 1868) According to 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." (Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873).

Stanton not only opposed abortion, but recognized the social factors causing women to seek it: "There must be a remedy even for such a crying evil as this," she wrote. "But where shall it be found, at least where begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?" (The Revolution, March 12, 1868)

Mattie Brinkerhoff also recognized that social factors such as poverty and discrimination cause women to seek abortions: "When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society -- so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged...How shall we prevent this destruction of life and health? By the true education and independence of woman." (The Revolution, September 2, 1869)

"Child murderers," wrote Sarah Norton, "practice their profession without let or hindrance, and open infant butcheries unquestioned…Is there no remedy for all this ante-natal child murder?...Perhaps there will come a time when…an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood…and when the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with." (Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly, November 19, 1870)

Feminists have continued to oppose abortion as an injustice towards women rather than a means to their emancipation into the 20th century. "The custom of procuring abortions has reached such appalling proportions in America as to be beyond belief..." wrote anarchist Emma Goldman in Mother Earth in 1911. "So great is the misery of the working classes that seventeen abortions are committed in every one hundred pregnancies."

Alice Paul, the author of the original Equal Rights Amendment (1923), opposed the later trend of linking it with abortion rights. She was of the opinion that "abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women."

Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League (now Planned Parenthood), opposed abortion. She lamented the resort of poor people to "the most barbaric method" of family planning, "the killing of babies -- infanticide – abortion." (My Fight for Birth Control, 1931) Sanger told clients in her first clinic that "abortion was the wrong way -- no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life." (An Autobiography, 1938)

Although Simone de Beauvoir supported the legalization of abortion, she vividly described its emotional damage and injustice to women: "Men tend to take abortion lightly; they...fail to realize the values involved. The woman who has recourse to abortion is disowning feminine values, her values...Women learn to believe no longer in what men say...the one thing they are sure of is this rifled and bleeding womb, these shreds of crimson life, this child that is not there." (The Second Sex, 1952)

A 1972 Presidential commission on population growth recommended legalizing abortion, with only a few voices dissenting. One of those expressing opposition to legalized abortion was Graciela Olivarez, a Chicana active in civil rights and anti-poverty work.

"The poor cry out for justice and equality," she explained, "and we respond with legalized abortion. I believe that in a society that permits the life of even one individual (born or unborn) to be dependent on whether that life is ‘wanted’ or not, all its citizens stand in danger...We do not have equal opportunities. Abortion is a cruel way out."

In her article "Feminism and Abortion: The Great Inconsistency" (The New Zealand Listener, January 7, 1978), Daphne de Jong responded to the pro-choice argument that the unborn is merely part of its mother and not a separate individual with rights:

"Until this century, the laws of both Britain and America made women a ‘part of’ their husbands.

" ‘By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law... our law in general considers man and wife one person.’ (Blackstone’s Commentaries, 1768).

"The one person was, of course, the husband, who exerted absolute power over his wife and her property. She had no existence and therefore no protection under the law. The only thing a husband could not do was kill her.

"The earliest feminist battles were fought against the legal chattel status of women. Many feminists were among those who overturned the U.S. Supreme Court decision of 1857, that a black slave was ‘property’ and not entitled to the protection of the Constitution.

"Feminism totally rejected the concept of ownership in regard to human beings. Yet when the court ruled in 1973 that the fetus was the property of its mother, and not entitled to the protection of the Constitution, ‘liberated’ women danced in the streets."

In an article appearing in the September 1980 issue of The Progressive, entitled, "Abortion: The Left Has Betrayed the Sanctity of Life," Mary Meehan wrote:

"If much of the leadership of the pro-life movement is right-wing, that is due largely to the default of the Left. We…who marched against the war and now march against abortion would like to see leaders of the Left speaking out on behalf of the unborn. But we see only a few, such as Dick Gregory, Mark Hatfield, Richard Neuhaus, Mary Rose Oakar. Most of the others either avoid the issue or support abortion.

"We are dismayed by their inconsistency. And we are not impressed by arguments that we should work and vote for them because they are good on such issues as food stamps and medical care.

"It is out of character for the Left to neglect the weak and the helpless. The traditional mark of the Left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor. The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas. The basic instinct of the Left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves -- and that instinct is absolutely sound. It is what keeps the human proposition going."

Meehan stated elsewhere that "Writer and activist Jay Sykes, who led Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 antiwar campaign in Wisconsin and later served as head of the state’s American Civil Liberties Union, wrote a ‘Farewell to Liberalism’ several years ago. Sykes cited several areas of disagreement and disillusionment, then added, ‘It is on the abortion issue that the moral bankruptcy of contemporary liberalism is most clearly exposed.’ He said that liberals’ arguments in support of abortion ‘could, without much refinement, be used to justify the legalization of infanticide.’ "

In her article, "Abortion and the Left" which originally appeared in Religious Socialism (Spring, 1981), Juli Loesch described the response to Mary Meehan’s article in The Progressive:

"The Left…is profoundly divided on abortion…in October 1980, Pax Christi USA, a Catholic peace organization that includes feminists and socialists, approved an anti-abortion resolution at its national assembly by virtually unanimous vote.

"Weeks later, Sojourners, a Christian peace/justice magazine, featured Daniel Berrigan, Shelley Douglass, Jesse Jackson and others arguing for opposition to abortion integrated with a more radical commitment to non-violent feminism and human dignity.

"Possibly abortion never was a Left/Right issue," concluded Loesch. "Soon after the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision one of the most progressive Senate Democrats, Harold Hughes, joined one of the most progressive Republicans, Mark Hatfield, in co-sponsoring a Human Life Amendment (HLA). Both were opponents of the Vietnam War. Both opposed abortion because of, not despite, their other political views…Michael Harrington once called pro-life one of the only true grassroots movements to emerge from the ‘70s."

"I have always thought it peculiar how the liberal and conservative philosophies have lined up on the abortion issue," observed "prolife feminist" Rosemary Bottcher in her article "How Do Pro-Choicers ‘Fool’ Themselves?" which originally appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat.

"It seemed to me that liberals traditionally have cared about others and about human rights, while conservatives have cared about themselves and property rights. Therefore, one would expect liberals to be defending the unborn and conservatives to be encouraging their destruction."

Rosemary Bottcher criticized the Left for its failure to take a stand against abortion:

"The same people who wax hysterical at the thought of executing, after countless appeals, a criminal convicted of some revolting crime would have insisted on his mother’s unconditional right to have him killed while he was still innocent.

"The same people who organized a boycott of the Nestle Company for its marketing of infant formula in underdeveloped lands would have approved of the killing of those exploited infants only a few months before.

"The same people who talk incessantly of human rights are willing to deny the most helpless and vulnerable of all human beings the most important right of all.

"Apparently these people do not understand the difference between contraception and abortion. Their arguments defending abortion would be perfectly reasonable if they were talking about contraception. When they insist upon ‘reproductive freedom’ and ‘motherhood by choice’ they forget that ‘pregnant’ means ‘being with child.’ A pregnant woman has already reproduced; she is already a mother."

At a speech before the National Right to Life Convention in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, on July 15, 1982, Reverend Richard John Neuhaus of the Evangelical Lutheran Church said:

"I have a confession to make. I am a liberal. More than that I am a Democrat…I know that among some pro-life advocates liberalism is almost a dirty word. I know it and I regret it. I know that among others there has been a determined effort to portray the pro-life movement as anti-liberal and, indeed, as reactionary. I know it and I regret it.

"We are today engaged in a great contest over the meaning of liberalism, over the meaning of liberal democracy, indeed over the meaning of America…Will it be an America that is inclusive, embracing the stranger and giving refuge to the homeless?…Will it be a caring America, nurturing the helpless and protecting the vulnerable?

"…The mark of a humane and progressive society is an ever more expansive definition of the community for which we accept responsibility...The pro-life movement is one with the movement for the emancipation of slaves. This is the continuation of the civil rights movement, for you are the champions of the most elementary civil, indeed human right--simply the right to be.

"There is another and authentically liberal vision of an America that is hospitable to the stranger, holding out arms of welcome to those who would share the freedom and opportunity we cherish. ‘Give me your tired, your poor, /Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, /The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, /Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me, /I lift my lamp beside the golden door.’

"The unborn child is the ultimate immigrant...The analogy between the unborn and the immigrant may seem strained. I fear, however, that it is painfully to the point."

According to Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke’s 1988 Handbook on Abortion, a poll was conducted at the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco, asking: "Should there be a Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion?" It was found that only nine percent of all delegates to the Convention supported such an amendment, even though it was supported by 46 percent of all Democrats nationwide.

The Reverend Jesse Jackson once observed that the "privacy" argument used in Roe vs. Wade to justify abortion "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."

In an article appearing in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Are Black Leaders Listening to Black America?", J. Perkins wrote: "Black leaders react in traditional, knee-jerk liberal fashion to issues across the board, even though, in general, black Americans are decidedly conservative on a number of issues. The Black Caucus, for example, advocates a ‘right’ to abort, whereas 62% of blacks oppose abortion (National Opinion Research Center, 1984)."

According to Mary Meehan, "...abortion is a civil rights issue. Dick Gregory and many other blacks view abortion as a type of genocide." Similarly, civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer (1917-1977) insisted, "The methods used to take human lives, such as abortion, the pill, the ring, etc., amounts to genocide. I believe that legal abortion is legal murder."

According to Hamer, "These are still our children. And we still love these children. And after these babies are born we are not going to disband these children from their families, because these are other lives, they are…and I think these children have a right to live. And I think these mothers have a right to support them in a decent way."

A pamphlet distributed by Milwaukee S.O.U.L. (Save Our Unwanted Lives) points out that under current U.S. law, corporations are considered legal persons, while humans in prenatal development are denied this moral status.

In an article entitled "Pro-Life, Pro-E.R.A.," appearing in Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices (1985), Juli Loesch wrote about an ardent Feminists for Life caucus "calling for a new amendment combining both the E.R.A. and the H.L.A. (Human Life Amendment), a sort of Equal Human Life Rights Amendment: to ‘ensure equality of rights under the law for all persons, regardless of sex, from fertilization to natural death.’ "

In her essay, "Life and Peace," Loesch wrote:

"In a revealing article published in Seven Days, Michelle Magar suggests that the New Right’s relationship with Right to Life has been ‘more a marriage of convenience than true love.’ She suggests that the antiabortion position adds ‘a certain moral luster’ to the New Right, which otherwise has a distinctly different set of priorities (threatening war for the possession of Persian Gulf oil, and so forth).

"Magar points out that, in a practical sense, the New Right’s concern for the unborn gives it access to the ‘grassroots antiabortion network of the Catholic Church--a ready-made constituency which they had so far never been able to win.’ "

In her article entitled "Pro-Abortionists Poison Feminism," appearing in Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices (1985), "prolife feminist" Rosemary Bottcher described abortion as a form of discrimination:

"Pro-abortion feminists resent the discrimination against a whole class of humans because they happen to be female, yet they themselves discriminate against a whole class of humans because they happen to be very young.

"They resent that the value of a woman is determined by whether some man wants her, yet they declare that the value of an unborn child is determined by whether some woman wants him.

"They resent that women have been ‘owned’ by their husbands, yet insist that the unborn are ‘owned’ by their mothers.

"They believe that a man’s right to do what he pleases with his own body cannot include the right to sexually exploit women, yet proclaim that a woman’s similar right means that she can kill her unborn child."

Public attitudes towards abortion were revealed in a March 1991 Gallup poll. 66 percent of those polled did not think financial hardships justify abortion. 68 percent did not think "abandonment by partner" is a valid reason to abort a child.

The Center for Disease Control in Atlanta reported that over two-thirds of all women seeking abortions in 1983 were not using any kind of birth control, while 40 percent of all abortions are performed on women who have already had at least one before. Nonetheless, 88 percent of Americans said they opposed abortion as a "repeated means of birth Control."

91 percent of Americans said they opposed abortion as a means of sex selection ("prenatal sexual discrimination"), while 69 percent supported parental consent legislation and viability testing on fetuses after the fifth month of pregnancy. This is significant because only 58 percent of Americans are aware that Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion during the entire nine months of pregnancy, and not just during the first trimester.

Informing a new mother about prenatal development and the alternatives to abortion was supported by 86 percent of those polled, while 52 percent of the women polled felt the right to life of the unborn outweighs the mother’s freedom to kill.

The American public is only familiar with the conservative Republican opposition to abortion. Columnist Tom Goff called the 1992 Republican National Convention "a gathering of loonies." The intelligent, rational, secular, liberal opposition to abortion goes unreported by the popular news media.

Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice, a self-described "liberal Jewish atheist," wrote an article in 1988 entitled, "A Liberal’s Journey to the Pro-Life Side." In a 1992 article entitled, "Pro-Life Feminists: Celebrating Life’s Greatest Liberty," Hentoff wrote that R.W. Apple Jr., in the New York Times, described then governor of Pennsylvania Robert Casey as "a conservative Democrat."

According to Hentoff, "Casey, however, has made Pennsylvania one of the first states to mandate help for young, disabled children (with $45 million for the first year). He has set up a model child-care program for state workers; he has been pushing for family leave legislation; and he has put together a program to assure health care to every uninsured Pennsylvania child up to the age of 6.

"This ‘conservative’ governor has been lauded by the National Women’s Caucus for his persistence in naming women cabinet appointees (40 percent) and in increasing the participation of women and minorities in state construction contracts from one percent to 15 percent. He is also a friend of labor (a phrase that used to be said more often with regard to Democratic politicians).

"I asked Gov. Casey how he felt being preserved in the New York Times Index as a conservative. Casey laughed. ‘Well, that’s the mind set of a good many people, in and out of the press. If you’re prolife, you must be conservative.’

"The press has been cautioned about its bent toward stereotyping prolifers," noted Hentoff. "...many readers and viewers have a decidedly limited sense of the diversity of prolifers. Feminists for Life of America, for example, includes women who came out of the civil rights and anti-war movements and now work for what they call ‘a consistent ethic of life.’ ...(then Feminists for Life president) Rachel McNair has been arrested at least 17 times--for protesting against nuclear plants and nuclear weapons..."

In a September 15, 1992 article appearing in the Village Voice entitled, "The Excommunication of Robert Casey," Hentoff observed that the Democratic Party had abandoned free speech by not allowing Casey to speak out against abortion at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. According to Casey, "The Democratic National Committee has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Abortion Rights Action League."

Casey said he would strongly support Lynn Yeakel who was then running against Republican Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. Yeakel favors abortion but, Casey said, "we agree on all the other issues." Casey stated further that he would not leave the Democratic Party. The anti-abortion Republicans, he insisted, "drop the children at birth and do nothing for them after that."

Gays Against Abortion was formed in 1991. They issued a statement: "We acknowledge that, from conception, the fetus is a human being entitled to basic rights, including the right to life. We hold that abortion denies that right and destroys that human being. We know first hand, from homophobia, what it is to have our rights denied...Like homophobia, abortion tries to get rid of the persons who are considered undesirable…We volunteer time and energy to pro-life pregnancy centers and pro-life agencies..."

Similarly, in the May 1992 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, in an article entitled, "Coming Out of the Closet for Life," Donna Marie Kearney wrote: "It is difficult to understand why so many gay and lesbian people can support the so-called woman’s right’ to abortion. While living as oppressed people, they are blind to the subversion of the rights of the unborn, the weakest and most powerless among us."

Kearney is a lesbian Christian peace activist, a member of the Faith and Resistance Community, and has been arrested in protest against nuclear weapons storage, and arrested along with Daniel Berrigan and others for trespassing at a Planned Parenthood building.

The abortion controversy is analogous to the Vietnam War. By the late 1960s, both the right and the Left came to agree that the war was wrong; they merely advocated different strategies for ending it. The real losers on this issue are the 1.5 million annual victims of prenatal homicide and the spineless politicians afraid to speak out against the madness.

Go on to: Part 34: The Seamless Garment Network
Return to: The Next Distraction

We welcome your comments and questions

(d-2)

| Home | Books | Publications | Articles | The Author |


This site is hosted and maintained by:
The Mary T. and Frank L. Hoffman Family Foundation
Thank you for visiting all-creatures.org.
Since date.gif (991 bytes)