Comparing abortion to the Holocaust is outrageous for so many reasons I can't even begin to enumerate them. And, I believe they are so obvious that I don't need to. Everyone knows why this isn't the case. But let me point out a not so obvious reason that this isn't true.
The Holocaust significantly targeted Jews, as well as other minority groups, both ethnic and social. But focusing on Jews for the moment, since they were the primary target... uh, Jewish law commands that abortion be performed in order to save the life of the mother. The Mishnah states: "If a woman has [life-threatening] difficulty in childbirth, one dismembers the embryo within her, limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over its life."
Additionally, Jewish law does not establish that the fetus is a viable person. In fact, just the opposite. From the Committee of Jewish Law and Standards, Adopted on November 21, 1983
Jewish tradition ... sanctions abortion under some circumstances because it does not regard the fetus as an autonomous person. This is based partly on the Bible (Exodus 21:22-23), which prescribes monetary damages when a person injures a pregnant woman, causing a miscarriage. The Mishnah (Ohalot 7:6) explicitly indicates that one is to abort a fetus if the continuation of pregnancy might imperil the life of the mother.So, my question is this. If you are going to compare a mastermind of mass-murder of an entire race, religion or social group to a medical procedure, don't you think the main group to whom you are making the analogy should agree with your ideology?
And in other news, the Congress takes up HR 358; the "Let Her Die" bill, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds to refuse to perform lifesaving pregnancy termination for any reason they choose, including in order to save the life of the mother.
And last for today, but certainly not least...
The city of Topeka, Kansas has repealed in a 7-3 vote, the law against domestic violence. Seven to three! It wasn't even close. Their reason? Yeah, it was expensive to prosecute all these cases, so we'd rather just let men beat up their wives. It makes life a whole lot easier on the budget.
Although domestic battery remains illegal in the State of Kansas, the city council has made it clear symbolically that they couldn't care less if a dude wants to beat the shit out of his partner.
"We opted out of the state statue [sic] last night which says municipalities should prosecute these crimes," said Mayor Bunten. "That was done so that it couldn't be thrown into our laps." (emphasis mine)Could they make it any clearer that they want nothing to do with taking care of their citizens? OK, let me rephrase... their women and children (since they are typically the victims of domestic violence).
I don't know about you, but I'm damn scared to be a woman in the US today. Seriously scared.
No comments:
Post a Comment