Between Two Holocausts
For easier reading, print out this essay.
Download
in Microsoft word *.doc format
By Bonnie
Chernin Rogoff:
Founder, Jews For Life
Last June, five Supreme Court Justices reached the chilling conclusion that no law can be established to preserve and protect a viable child's life, at any stage of pregnancy, up to birth. Forget about any actual viewer or voter outrage that the highest court in the land affirmed a woman's legal right to commit infanticide. Aside from outcries by anguished pro-life activists and journalists, the potential for public outrage doesn't even seem to be there. Life goes on, with a yawn, and an apathetic shrug.
As it stands today, the
Court has nullified the possibility for states to restrict partial birth
abortions. Using the Constitution in
their defense while avoiding direct references to Roe v. Wade, five Justices
have ruled that infanticide under a different name (i.e., "choice")
can be made palatable enough to be consistent with Roe. While pro-aborts have reproached us our use
of the phrase partial birth abortion, calling it a "nebulous" term to
"dupe the public" (i.e., to tell the truth) the Court majority
opinion employs many nebulous terms, including "health," "fetal
evacuation" and "demise," (as opposed to "infant
death") "fetal tissue," (as opposed to "arms,"
"legs," "baby,") and the dubious term "content. All these words are carefully crafted to
defend the indefensible. Justice Sandra
Day O'Connor assures us that if the law is amended to include the word
"health," she'd change her opinion.
She knows that "health," would render any restrictions
meaningless, and partial birth abortions would continue for all nine months of
pregnancy for elective reasons. Most
Americans don't know that. It's
permissible to muddy the waters, so long as the light remaining on the surface
reflects the will of the pro-abortion extremists.
For pro-lifers like myself,
the same questions have been asked for much too long, with unsettling
answers. Let's forget the words and
semantic games, and get down to reality.
How can people not see that there have to be reasonable limits on what
opponents euphemistically call "choice?
How can a woman's right to "control her body," be so
sacrosanct to the pro-aborts that it's perfectly fine with them to kill a
living, breathing human being? How can
thinking, rational and intelligent people with consciences and souls, not see
that partial birth abortion is tantamount to infanticide, cold, calculated and
cruel? Why would people who are in the
power and position to stop this horror continue, knowing exactly what they are
doing, to legislate evil?
A number of years ago, I
took a college course in contemporary Jewish history, and the course content
obviously included a Holocaust retrospective.
The two questions every person in that class asked at the end of the
term are the same two questions that all distraught Jews have been asking since
the end of World War II: 1) How can a civilized, intellectual and educated
society of people, made up of individuals presumably with consciences and souls
just like everyone else, choose to systematically target and eliminate another
group of individuals in cold blood, without mercy or a second thought? 2) Where was God during all that time? Was He simply out to lunch for fifteen years
while innocent people were being tortured to death?
Such questions only led to
confusing arguments, interpretations and explanations that led to more pressing
questions and inadequate answers.
"Why did the Germans do this horrible thing? Answer: "They are the most evil society
ever to exist in the history of mankind.
"Why the Jews? Answer: "The
Germans needed a scapegoat for their economic deprivations, the Jews were a
despised minority, and they were there.
"How could God allow this to happen? Answer: "We can never really know why God intends for things
to happen, we simply have to accept that they occur."
We, as mortals, will never
really know the answer as to why the Nazis committed such horrific acts of
genocide against the Jews. Nor will we
know why God apparently did not intervene before six million deaths. However, we can surmise why people continue
to ask so many questions about the Holocaust, why there are courses, films,
books, CD's and lectures. People need
to feel comfortable with evil. They
need to ease their conflicting brain waves and quiet their troubled consciences
against - what? The alternative, to
admit that human beings are inherently evil for no reason and to no purpose
other than self-gratification, is too much for us to bear. Our Dr. Jekyll requires us to correct the
imperious Mr. Hyde, and not permit us to look evil straight in the eye and
examine its contents. What solace can
we possibly obtain from the political consequences of evil? Is it comforting to know that innocent
Jewish blood was spilled by the notorious Dr. Mengele, after which he evaded
capture by Nazi hunters and lived his life in obscurity and comfort in South
America, until he died from natural causes?
Are we satisfied knowing that our own government financed their space
program with the help of former Nazi war criminals? Is that fair? Is that
just? Isn't it simply easier to
establish Israel as a "gift" to the Jews to appease them for all
their suffering? Doesn't that make it
all better?
Going back to the Holocaust
questions, the last answer, that is, that we must accept horrible outcomes as
we don't totally understand acts of God, is the only possible explanation we
can conjure up. The study of "root
causes" and "environmental factors" is an inaccurate non-science
that has resulted in band-aid approaches such as rehabilitation programs for
handling crime. For unacceptable speech
and "bias" crimes, we have the hate crime legislation and sensitivity
training. These methods may stop
individual immoral actions, but not evil inclinations.
If something appears to be
very, very wrong, it probably is. What
we should be doing is recognizing the wrong, admitting the wrong, naming it by
its real name, and punishing those responsible for perpetuating the wrong. That's easy enough when you have errant
individuals, or even small groups of bad people doing bad things. What do you do when one huge organized
system of government is responsible for doing bad things? How do you stop that? Moreover, and here's the key point, what
does one do when "the system" routinely injects propaganda to slowly
and carefully transform something horrible into something tolerable, necessary
or even into an image of goodness? How
can an individual understand the truth of an issue if, by the time they are
familiar with it, it has been revised beyond recognition?
The Third Reich leaders were
experts in distortion, and indoctrination techniques. To dehumanize Jews, Nazi leaders had to suppress facts and
propagandize with a barrage of lies about the Jewish people. Any sane person reading Nazi Julius
Streicher's story, "How To Tell A Jew," in his anti-Semitic
children's book "Der Giftpilz," can not possibly believe such filth
would receive wide acclaim and acceptance.
But it did. Newspapers produced
cartoon editorials, some depicting Jews as thieves, others portraying rich Jews
supporting the Bolsheviks' rise to power on the backs of starving Germans. Hitler knew that with time, persistence, and
the right circumstances of a horrendous economy, absurdities could be twisted
into reason. After a few years of early
indoctrination in Hitler's Youth, it would be difficult to find a German teen
who didn't fall under the spell of "Aryan superiority. There was a consensus of public support for
a Jewish evacuation program. When the
"cleansing process," the real objective of Hitler's Final Solution
was underway, plans were altered from emigration to extermination. By then, Germans were only too happy to oblige,
because the economy was strong and their army the most powerful in Europe. Of course, a little coercion doesn't hurt;
resisting Hitler would have grave consequences for even the most
"flawless" Aryan.
There is no argument that
the Nazis used a variety of methods to thwart resistance to their goal, the
annihilation of every Jew in Europe.
However, even with our democratic government, we do not really have
freedom to choose freely.
System-regulated propaganda is so pervasive that individuals who initially
support certain causes can eventually fall victim to the lies built within,
with devastating consequences (Norma McCorvey is one example; she was deceived
by the feminist pro-abortion propaganda machine. Let's not forget the many women who, seduced by
"choice," opt for abortion and suffer from post abortion syndrome
later on). Indeed, in a democracy, good
people who mean well and want the best for everyone are not always prepared to
acknowledge their own errors in judgment, until it is too late. That's the downside of freedom, which if
left unguarded, can lead to government abuse that will destroy the foundation
of our Constitution along with the moral principles upon which our country was
founded.
The dehumanization of unborn
children did not occur in a vacuum.
Following the introduction of birth control pills, feminist organizers
became preoccupied with reforming abortion laws as the sexual revolution
unfolded during the 1960's. Gradually,
through judicial activism, abortion laws were liberalized in a number of states
prior to Roe. Feminist literature from
that time seems almost quaint, articles longingly spoke of a day when coat
hangers would be back in the closets; when back-alleys would be no more sinister
than backyards, and the word "quack" would refer to nothing more than
the petulant phonations of an aquatic bird.
Women not initially
receptive to the idea of legalizing abortion became involved in the feminist
movement for other reasons. Had early
efforts been confined to getting women entry into the professional workforce
and assuring equal pay for equal work, that would have been
understandable. However, marriage and
childbirth were scorned and single women were encouraged to experiment sexually
with a variety of partners. Female
sexual response, and the attainment of pleasure without consequences, became a
guidepost within the feminist movement.
Many of the "pop-psych" books reflected the growing "if
it feels good, do it" trend, and women's magazines became almost obsessed
with the quantity and quality of orgasms.
Demands for equal sexual rights with men, including "reproductive
rights," resulted in a rise in promiscuity, and the divorce rate began to
climb as married women became self-absorbed and dissatisfied.
The Pill was only an intermediate
step to the Final Solution that would end sexual repression, and establish
liberation for sexually active women (a deception filled with
repercussions). It was not enough to
control pregnancy by easy evacuation of an unfertilized egg (i.e., prevent a
baby from being conceived), the product of conception had to be stopped (i.e.,
the baby had to be exterminated). The
activists' objective was to convince the public that choice (abortion) was
preferable to the alternative of forced slavery (motherhood). If the tactics failed, they'd resort to the
courts (i.e., force the public to accept legalization whether they agreed with
it or not).
For those abortion activists
whose motives were clear but who were not comfortable enough to venture into
this brave new world where unborn babies fell victim to sordid linguistic
misrepresentations, there were alternatives.
It was possible to hide behind the crisis of overpopulation, and
unwanted children. Many of these
pioneer activists were sincere in their beliefs. If abortions were legal, we could eliminate world hunger,
poverty, and the growing epidemic of welfare mothers and drifting fathers. So, from the vantage point of crimes against
living children, abortion was being morphed even then into a necessary good.
In 1973, Americans were
extremely troubled with the prospect of first trimester abortions being
performed for convenience, as a method of birth control. Had anyone suggested that a law be passed
allowing babies to be aborted up to the moment of birth, suctioning their
brains out as part of a "medical procedure," people would have been
aghast at the thought. After twenty
seven years, we've already learned to co-exist painfully and passively, with routine
vacuum-aspiration abortion, saline abortion, assisted suicide, abortion as
"choice," a dead baby as a "product of conception," baby
harvesting, and so on. Now that the
Supreme Court has ruled in favor of legal infanticide up to birth, it is only a
matter of time before we adjust to that new definition of choice. In some ways, I fear we already have
adjusted. People I speak to about
partial birth abortion used to recoil in horror at the description and leave
the room; now they are able to discuss it over a sandwich and coffee.
In an article reprint
entitled, "One Woman's Abortion," by "Mrs. X," the author
describes her own illegal abortion and longs for a time when "therapeutic
abortions" will "lead the way.
She opines: "Social grounds for abortion could follow, under the
surveillance of abortion boards composed of M.D.'s and psychiatrists"
(italics mine). Mrs. X's article
originally appeared in the Atlantic Monthly in August, 1965. We are a far cry from those naive
beginnings. That's why it's so
important not to mince words. I'm not
afraid to call partial birth abortion infanticide, for that's what it is. I'm not ashamed to say that abortion
degrades women, for that's what it does.
As a Jew, I'm not wrong to refer to what supporters call
"choice" as an American Holocaust, for that's what it has become.
In summation, the solution
to reversing our cultural decline requires not simply correction, but an
examination of history, an access to and understanding of facts. We pro-lifers know the facts because we're
involved, and we examine the abortion issue up close. If we want the general public to know the truth behind the issue,
it is up to us to inform them to examine the laws firsthand, before
policymakers and pro-abortion organizations give them their version. Then, everyone will have the knowledge to
make wise decisions, and hopefully vote those responsible for bad laws out of
office.
When the Supreme Court
declares open season on babies, nullifying state rights they themselves set
forth in the former Casey decision, it's time for all Americans to take
notice. Unless there is political
intervention now, soon, to stop our progression into complacency, we will one
day seriously regret our error. We'll
be killing living children with resignation and acceptance, perhaps even glee,
along with other members of our society deemed unfit or inconvenient. By then, deformed thinking will be the norm
and people will have so acclimated themselves that they will no longer be able
to distinguish the difference in value between a living human being and a dead
one.
We haven't reached that
point where we are immune to films, lectures and images of genocide; we are
still capable of being horrified and desiring change. My prayer is that our current level of discomfort becomes unbearable
and tortures us so, that we shudder and tremble at the prospect of such a
dreadful future for our children. Maybe
then the fear will urge us to do what is right, and vote only for candidates
who will end infanticide forever.
Please, I beseech you to remember the Holocausts. Both of them.
Bonnie Chernin Rogoff ©2000. Not to be reproduced in any fashion, in whole or in part, without written consent from the author. All rights reserved.