From: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:20:58 GMT

In article <2935679179.0.p00168@psilink.com> 
"James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:

> Nice work, you dishonest little weasel. Trim your own quote to remove the 
> idiotic implication without even indicating deletions, then cut the part 
> of my response that points it out.  Intellectual slime-ball.

The part of your response that pointed out the "idiotic 
implication" was buried in an unreadable .signature, and 
I usually don't read .sigs.  It's normally proper etiquette
to delete .signatures, but I'm sorry if I misrepresented
your post.  

> You had added that the Civil Rights Act passed 8 months later.  I 
> extrapolated from your implied prediction that abortion would be 
> outlawed within 6 months, tongue in cheek.  Of course, my point was that 
> your analogy sucks rocks.  

No, that was not my analogy, that was your analogy. 

> Let me be more explicit in expanding the imaginary 
> example:
>
> 1962: "Let's leave, Martha."
>
> 1992: "I think I'm going to vomit, Martha -- oh -- you alread have, I see."

I don't see the relevance of this imaginary example.

> The methods of the Civil Rights Movevment were not, in and of themselves,
> repellent. 

That's because history has passed judgement on the protest tactics
of the Civil Rights era.  You can sit here today, and say that 
they were not repellent because history has borne that out to
be the truth.  At the time, many people disapproved of the protest
tactics, including those who supported Civil Rights reforms.

> Marching, singing "We Shall Overcome" (well, that one almost made 
> me puke -- just hate the song 8^), and riding in the front 
> of the bus did not cause people to faint from horror. 

That's irrelevant, see above.

> The vile insensitivity 
> of fetus hoisting reflects the pitiless hatred and moral bankruptcy 
> of those holding your opinion.  

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'm not ready to pass judgement
on those protest tactics yet.  Values have a tendency to change. 

> The Civil Rights Movement was 
> non-violent by design, and when it turned into nasty riots, as when they 
> burned down U Street in DC after M.L. King was murdered, the actions 
> were condemned by the leadership.  Fire-bombing the clinics is part of 
> the organized strategy of anti-abortion groups.  

Pro-lifers have consistently condemned this violence.  I challenge 
you to point to one pro-lifer on talk.abortion who approves of
this violence. 

> Pro-lifers are, collectively, 
> little more than sick, ignorant, violent, lawless vigilante gangs.

Let's go back 30 years or so, and replace "pro-lifers" with
"civil rights activists" in your statement above.  What do 
you get? 

> from "Perspective: Anti-abortion and Religion", Betty McCollister, 
> _Free Inquiry_, Winter '86, 
>
> As the abortion battle waxes more glandular and violent, it is easy to 
> forget what a new battle it is, especially in its religious aspects.

Notice that the author focuses most of her attention on
the more controversial aspects of the pro-life movement.
Nowhere does she offer a rational argument in support of
abortion rights--all her attention is focused on pro-lifers. 
Notice that the author attempts to portray abortion as a
religious issue, which it is not.

> [.. deletions ..] 
> 
> Anti-abortionists argue that modern science has confirmed the full 
> humanity of the zygote, or fertilized egg.  They conveniently overlook 
> other discoveries of modern science, e.g. that about a third of all 
> conceptions are spontaneously aborted, usually without the pregnant 
> woman's awareness; 

The fact that many children die of natural causes is not justification
for killing them.  If that were the case, then the starving children
in Somalia would be "less human" because they're more likely to die 
than other children.  

> that the fetus is wholly dependent o the mother _in 
> utero_ and very much so after birth; 

Is the author arguing that infanticide is not immoral? 

> and that babies deprived of good 
> care, either pre- or post-natally, are seriously at risk physically and 
> emotionally.

This has no relevance to abortion.

>  [... bashing of pro-lifers ..]
>
> Mohr writes that abortion was taken fro granted in 
> America, as it had been or millenia everywhere (especially when it was 
> between a woman and her midwife) until about 1850, when members of the 
> newly organized American Medical Association became concerned over the 
> number being performed dangerously by medical quacks.  Motivated at 
> first by a laudable desire to protect women's healthe, they later 
> included in their propaganda arsenal the anti-feminist argument that God 
> cretaed woment to bear children adn the racist argument that racially 
> inferior and undesirable Catholic women -- "the ignorant, the low-lived, 
> and the alien" -- were outbreeding "our own population as WASP women 
> aborted, and that "America is fast losing her national characteristics." 

You can find similar repulsive statements about eugenics in Margaret 
Sanger's books which she wrote in the early 20th century.  Margaret 
Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood, which today is one of 
the major groups which opposes abortion legislation.  Also interesting
to note is that the majority of women who obtain abortions today are 
non-white.

> A short excursion into American history won;t end the war, but it should 
> defuse the religious argument to an extent.  

Notice that the author has failed to present any rational
arguments in favor of abortion rights.  Much of her rhetoric
is focused on bashing pro-lifers or portraying abortion as a
religious issue.  

> As a reviewer in the _Christian Century_ wrpte: "Mohr makes it 
> abundantly clear that the Supreme Court decisions of the 1970s were not 
> a modern meakening of moral statndards but a return to what Americans 
> believed and practiced a hundred years ago."

The Supreme Court decisions of the 1970s have received harsh 
criticisms from numerous sources.  Justice Blackmun, who was
the architect of the principle abortion decision _Roe v. Wade_,
conceded in a private memo that the decision was ``arbitrary'',
and another Justice who joined Blackmun in the majority opinion
criticized the decision for being ``legislative''. (See "The
Abortion Papers", The Washington Post, Jan 22, 1989). 

For a concise and well-written refutation of the Roe decision, 
see "The Law and History of Abortion: The Supreme Court Refuted", 
in the book _Abortion, Medicine, and the Law_, 1986. 

>  [.. religious argument deleted ..]
>
>-End Quoted Article-

> The quoted article is for others on the thread, since I doubt you 
> will even take the time to read it.  

No, I read the whole thing.  I thought it was garbage.

> If I have failed to offend you, I at least gave it my best shot.  

Sorry, I don't get offended easily.  You'll have to try much harder.

> It's hard to match fetus hoisting for grossing everybody out, however. 
> If your hide is thick enough to accept fetus hoisting without fliching, 
> nothing should bother you too much.  

I didn't say I accepted it.  I just feel that we should allow
history to pass judgement on the practice of carrying around
a dead fetus.  I guess you weren't reading; we could have avoided
this misunderstanding.

>  ,...,.,,
> /666;    ',    jim tims
>////;    _~ -   p00168@psilink.com
>(/@/----0-~-0
> ;'  . `` ~ \'
>  , `    ' , >    Quote for a parallel thread, from _Abortion_, by M. Potts:
>;;|\..((   -C---->"...ideals demand that the practice of abortion shall be
>;;| >-  `.__),;   exterminated with a strong hand." -- Adolf Hitler.

Sad, so sad.

Here's an article which refutes the notion that the
Nazis were anti-abortion, and it also compares the Nazi 
policies with the permissive abortion policies of today:
(Remember folks, he raised the subject).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The unification of Germany took place in 1870.  The German Penal Code
was installed in 1871. Section 218 of that code, the provisions covering
abortion, were probably the strictest in the world.  It subjected both
the woman having the abortion and the doctor who performed it to
penitentiary terms. (Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept.
21, 1929,p. 934).  In Germany, abortion was seen as a violation of "the
legal rights of the unborn child" (JAMA 2/27/26, p. 639).  Though the
Reichstag had several proposals for expanding or legalizing abortion in
the 1920's and 30's, all stayed in draft form until the Nazi takeover.
(Journal of the American Medical Association, October 8, 1927, p. 1265;
JAMA September 21, 1929, p. 935; JAMA May 23, 1931, p. 1810). 
 
Dr. H. Poll, speaking at a meeting of the Berlin Society of Public
Health Culture in 1921 declared that "it is a crime to bring sick
children into the world". (JAMA 2/11/22, p. 448). This attitude cul-
minated in the eugenics policies of the Third Reich.  

On January 30, 1933, Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany.

"In 1933 the Prussian Ministry of Justice produced a memorandum on the
admissibility of sterilization, eugenic abortion, and the extermination
of valueless life ... " (Weindling, "Health, Race, and German Politics",
p. 546). 

However, as late as April 13, 1934 an author in Deustche Medizinische
WochenSchrifte found it necessary to declare that abortion for eugenic
reasons "is forbidden and punishable AS BEFORE (emphasis added) under
article 218" of the Penal Code.  "According to the letter of the law, it
is still forbidden today to perform abortions ... the still unborn child
has a right to life ... but if genetic deformities are certain, the
destruction of such a fruit is no less correct than the sterilization of
a genetically ill person." (Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrifte, Vol.
60, 4/13/34. pp. 549-550).  However, medical opinion held that such
abortions should be performed only under the most dire genetic indica-
tions; light or intermediate indications should not be a reason to abort
(DMW, Vol 59, p. 1086)

The Reichstag fire on February 27, 1933, the Roehm putsch of July, 1934,
and Hindenburg's death on August 2, 1934, completed Hitler's consolida-
tion of power.  In "September 1934 [Gerhard] Wagner, [the Nazi Reichs-
aerztfuerher (leader of Reich's medicine)] decreed that abortion for
degenerate parents was free of prosecution [despite heated controversy
in the administration], Hitler sided with Wagner." (Weindling, "Health,
Race, and German Politics Between National Unification and Nazism,
1870-1945" pp. 530-531).

Thus, in 1934, the Hamburg Eugenics Court declared a racial emergency
and embarked on a program of eugenic abortions.  "A pregnancy may be
interrupted in case either parent has been legally declared to present
hereditary and transmissible defects." (JAMA, 7/20/35, p. 213). This was
the first time since Germany was formed that abortion was ever legally
permitted for reasons other than the preservation of the life and health
of the mother.  

The Nazi government approved legal abortion under the guidelines laid
down by the Berlin Chamber of Physicians. These guidelines included
criteria for a staff of consultants who determined that the mother's
life was in danger, where the procedure could take place (only in
hospitals or physician-approved clinics), consultations with genetic
"hereditary" courts to approve the eugenics of the situation, and
punishment of abortions undertaken by non-sanctioned medical personnel.
("Abortion Spontaneous and Induced" by A. Taussig 1936, p. 424 and JAMA,
January 13, 1934, p. 144).  Only those who failed to follow the
guidelines were punished.  The provision about the threat to the life or
health of the mother had already been defined by the Berlin Chamber of
Physicians in 1929 to include all "social and economic conditions" which
might bear upon the situation.(JAMA May 23, 1931, p. 1810).  Due to the
attitude of the Federal Health Services Director, who declared that this
widely defined health was the "decisive consideration", the policy
amounted to abortion on demand. (JAMA 9/21/29 p. 935).  

Thus, the situation in Nazi Germany compares favorably with that of New
York City in the pre-RvW era - it matches Dr. Bernard Nathanson's
description of the use of New York abortion laws ("Aborting America"). 

According to a 1935 issue of Deutsches Aerzeblatt, one-half million
abortions were performed annually. (JAMA 7/20/1935, p. 212) Germany's
population at that time was 65 to 67 million.  500,000 abortions were
recorded under the rubric of "strictly ensuring the health of the
mother" and the ascertaining of "dire genetic conditions". It is
probable that the German number is an under-reporting, since many
abortions were likely to be classified as miscarriages. In 1980, 1.554
million abortions took place in the U.S., which had a 1980 population of
223 million (1990 Statistical Abstract, Tables 43 and 101). The per
capita abortion rate in Nazi Germany exceeded that of 1980 America.

Abortion in the U.S. is currently deemed to be therapeutic if it is done
to destroy a genetically, mentally, or physically ill child. Note that
only AFTER the Nazis came to power did doctors publishing in this
journal begin to refer to the child as a "keimenden Leben", a "germinat-
ing life", instead of as a "life" or as a "child".  This is precisely
the rhetoric used by abortion supporters in America.

"On 18 August, 1939, the Reich Ministry of the Interior ... decreed the 
registration of children under three years of age ... it selected 5,000
children, many with Down's Syndrome, for extermination." (Weindling, pp.
546)  This is crude.  Enlightened Americans destroy them in the womb,
before they have a chance to get out and rouse sympathy.

Abortion was also used in the death camps against female Eastern
European workers who did clerical work in the camps and lived in the
towns nearby.  Clarissa Henry and Marc Hillel in their book, "Of Pure
Blood" characterize the number of abortions committed under the Nazi
regime as "incalculable" (p. 177).

On May 27, 1941, the Ministry of the Interior of the Reich proposed to
reduce the surplus population by allowing abortion at the mother's
request. (NG-844) A decree of October 19, 1941 introduced abortion and
other instruments of genocide into countries under National Socialist
rule (NO-1878). On July 23, 1942, Martin Bormann sent instructions to
Alfred Rosenburg to expand abortion to all non-German females (NO-1878). 

The fears of massive population explosion led to several similar orders.
("Trials of War Criminals" Vol 4, pp. 1085 - 1086).  Fears of a
population explosion are still being used to justify abortion today. 
National Socialists were as humane as Planned Parenthood clinics when
they opined 

     "It is known that racially inferior offspring of Eastern workers
     and Poles is to be avoided if at all possible.  Although pregnancy
     interruptions ought to be carried out on a voluntary basis only,
     pressure is to be applied in each of these cases."  (Trial of War
     Criminals Vol. 5, p. 112).

This position is favored by Americans.  The May 1980 National Abortion
Federation Convention heard Dr. Jane Hodgson's version of pressure when
she suggested the establishment of abortion as an obligatory form of
immunization against teenage pregnancy, which was seen as reaching
disease proportions. She pointed out that "we have mandatory immuniza-
tions, but we have no law prohibiting motherhood before the age of 14...
[we must] madate against continuing pregnancy in the very young - say
those less than 14". (National Right to Life News, June 2, 1980, p. 13).

Dr. Taussig, a leader in the pro-abortion movement before World War II,
expressed admiration for the German example in his book "Abortion
Spontaneous and Induced" (1936).  He stated that legally recognized
abortion only met with success after Hitler came to power. (p. 424)

Hitler himself is on record as stating that he "would personally shoot"
anyone who tried to stop abortion in the Eastern territories. (Of Pure
Blood, p. 148)  The fact that he did nothing to stop the number of
abortions being performed on Aryan women shows that, while he may
personally have opposed abortion, he was unwilling to do anything to
stop it - in fact, he took several actions to expand it. In addition,
his willingness to accept the recommendations of the Berlin Council of
Physicians, the council which had historically attempted to expand the
definition of "threat to the mother's life and health", shows an "anti--
abortion Hitler" who was out of touch with the existing social situa-
tion.  This is quite unusual for a man with Hitler's noted ability to
both follow and mold public opinion.  If he were strongly anti-abortion,
he did not need to change the law, he needed only to enforce existing
law.  He certainly would not want the Berlin council to change it.

*********************************************************************
Weindling points out that "the [legal abortion] campaign might be
regarded as useful in weakening the grip of pro-natalism, so that it
could be replaced by racial hygiene, selective welfare, eugenic
abortion, and sterilization." ("Health, Race, and German Politics", 
p 461.). 
********************************************************************

Thanks for much of the research in this post goes to Dr. William Brennan
and his book "The Abortion Holocaust".  The footnotes headed NO and NG
reference documents entered as evidence in the Nuremburg trials.  Your
local college or university library should have the transcripts of those
trials in the government documents section.  I have used them for
research purposes in the past, and they are excellent sources of
information on Nazi policies. However, they are not complete compendiums
of Nazi policy, due to the speed with which the trial was conducted and
the huge mass of material the Allied prosecutors had to assemble for
evidence.  Be assured that for every page of German evidence found in
that work, their exists a roomful of supporting documentation in
Washington, London, and Moscow. To understand why Hitler had to move so
slowly to create legalized abortion, it is necessary to understand the
constraints he worked under.  Despite popular contemporary opinion to
the contrary, Hitler's power was not absolute.  An excellent work
describing the problems of Nazi government is "The Limits of Hitler's
Power". It describes several conditions which limited Hitler's totali-
tarian dictatorship, including the resistance of religiously devout
villagers to the Nazi regime.

Steven Kellmeyer

"Shudder to destroy life, either with the naked knife, 
or through the surer and safer method of empiricism."
            ---- Timothy Dwight.


Newsgroups: talk.abortion