Return to NOBODY'S BODY BUT MINE Return to Columns Page Return to Sonoma County Free Press Home Page
First written August 4, 1995 Revised: June 18, 1997
NOBODY'S BODY BUT MINE
Holocaust Not!Debate Part 2
by Beth Grimes
The Sonoma County Free Press presented an opinion piece by abortion opponent Dalin Hale entitled "Holocaust Now!". This column is Part 2 of the Abortion Debate and is a rebuttal to Hale's arguments.
Dalin Hall compares the infamous Supreme Court Dred Scott ruling to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion in the United States. And he invokes the specter of Naziism by referring to abortion as a Holocaust. We have heard these arguments before. They are based on the false premise that an embryo in utero is a baby. It is not.
In his essay, Hale compares Dred Scott, an adult person, to the fetus. This is an invalid comparison. A fetus lacks the capacity to suffer what Dred Scott suffered, since it does not have the neurological structures with which to experience pain.
Dred Scott was an adult human being with the comprehension which made him painfully aware of the impact of the degrading, dehumanizing condition of slavery in which he lived. And a cruel, tragic impact it was. Black people lived under the "Slave Codes". Their owners could whip, maim or brand them at will. A slave could never lift a hand against a white person even in self-defense. It must be emphasized that these outrages against black people were endured by already born humans with brains and nervous systems which rendered them fully aware of the physical hurt and psychological anguish inflicted upon them.
Enslaved black females were subjected to truly repellent forms of servitude. They were compelled to sexually satisfy their white masters. If a white slave owner wished sexual pleasure from a slave woman, she had no choice but to yield. No matter how repugnant this was to her, she had to submit. If a pregnancy resulted from the encounter, her master was rewarded with another slave, another income-producing asset, an "asset" which could be worked or sold.
To have one's labor used for the profit of another with no benefit to one's own self is slavery. To have one's very body used to produce another human on demand is to heap injury upon indignity and is the quintessence of slavery.
The woman who is unwillingly pregnant and forced, by law or intimidation, to bear a child she does not want is more akin to the enslaved Dred Scott than is the unborn "person" Hale wants to save.
Hale contends that society through elected representatives has the right to intervene "on behalf of unborn human life". He overlooks an important fact: unborn life exists at the expense of the woman in whose body it resides. This unborn life, unlike an already born infant, is unable to exist without using the maternal body as a life support system. Does the owner of the maternal body have no rights? What if the pregnancy threatens her health? Her very life? What if it was the result of rape or incest, a violation of her inmost being? Who does Dalin Hale think he is to make the judgment, through his elected representatives or any other way, that the woman's life and freedom must be subject to his viewpoint, a viewpoint which exalts embryonic life and completely disregards that of the woman who would have the responsibility of bearing and rearing it?
The courts of this country have always maintained that government cannot force an individual to use his or her body to preserve the life of someone who is already born. If we make abortion illegal again, would this not provide a precedent for changing this legal principle? For requiring citizens to make their bodies and bodily parts available to others, including those already out of the womb, who might need them in order to go on living? Why restrict the "right to life" to the unborn? Once we accept the notion, based on some "inherent right to life", that a woman can be compelled to allow her body to be used for the benefit of a fetus, why not demand the same benefit for those already born? How about requiring every able-bodied citizen to have his bone marrow tested and to make himself and his marrow accessible to any leukemia patient who might need it in order to survive? Would Dalin Hale, and others who think like him, agree to this kind of law? What part of Dalin Hale's own body is he willing to offer to someone who may require it to insure continued existence? Or does he think only female bodies should be available for use as life support?
Presently, no court can compel anyone to donate bone marrow for transplant or an organ of his body or some of his blood, even when doing so could preserve life. This is an established legal principle.
And if we support the principle that the state is restrained from forcing such medical procedures in order to save life, how can we agree to the notion that the state can force a woman to allow every organ system in her body to be used to maintain the life of a fetus even when it is against her wishes and against her interests to do so?
Hale goes on to compare the Nazi Holocaust, the calculated slavery, torture and murder of millions of mostly Jewish victims, to abortion in the United States since 1973. Again the parallel he tries to make is between the insentient cluster of dividing embryonic cells and the fully aware and suffering already born person who was the doomed concentration camp inmate. To attempt such a comparison is to trivialize, to diminish the sadism and horror which was the reality of Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald and the other death factories. Jews are rightfully angered by the"pro-life" movement's use of the word "Holocaust".
Hale offers us an unusual interpretation of the history of the Nazi rise to power when he discusses the ..." majority...who found hope and inspiration in Hitler....who... were eager to take part in the new moral crusade that Hitler promised to lead..." Strangely, Hale makes no mention of the anti-Semitism pre-existing in the German public mind, nor of their prejudice against other disfavored groups. These factors fail to appear in his analysis of the regime's coming to power. But, it was the willingness of the German people to allow blatant discrimination against those Hitler set up as scapegoats for all of Germany's problems which allowed the horror of the concentration camps, the mass exterminations. New moral crusade indeed!
One final word about Hitler and abortion: Pro-lifers generally like to say that "Hitler started with abortion". The truth is that Hitler outlawed abortion for German women, the better to increase the numbers of "pure Aryans" for his Third Reich. At the same time, he made sure abortions were performed on pregnant women who were members of groups he considered "genetically inferior" or "undesirable". The lesson here is that a government which can outlaw abortion can mandate abortion.
We should all consider the implications of that lesson.
Return to NOBODY'S BODY BUT MINE Return to Columns Page Return to Sonoma County Free Press Home Page