by Gary L. Morella, Catholic member of the research faculty, Penn State

There have been many people who are reluctant to compare the Jewish Holocaust with the killing of babies in the womb, the holocaust of our time. I don't understand this for the following reasons.

Holocaust means "a thorough destruction." How anyone could say that a holocaust is not occurring when babies are brutally killed in their mothers' womb defies description. I would invite anyone who identifies themselves as "pro-choice" to watch a film on embryoscopy to see the fully formed transparent baby at four weeks with the heart clearly beating and then to watch a film on abortion where baby parts are cavalierly deposited into trays. This isn't about a person's "choice"; it's about life and death. A child is not a "choice" except in a desensitized society that calls the removal of a fully term baby from the womb by its feet and the subsequent sucking out of its brains "dilation and extraction" to the extreme of someone masquerading as president of the United States having no problem with the non support of Born Alive Infant Protection Acts!

Simply put, the human embryo is not potentially a new human being, but a new human being full of potential. Everything needed for the adult person is already biologically present with the formation of the first cell. This is recognized by the vast majority of medical schools.

The theological perspective, beginning with the light which Revelation sheds on the meaning of a human life and on the dignity of the person, supports and sustains human reason in regard to these conclusions, without in any way diminishing the validity of contributions based on rational evidence. Therefore the duty of respecting the human embryo as a human person derives from the reality of the matter and from the force of rational argumentation, and not exclusively from a position of faith.

>From the juridical point of view, the core of the debate on the protection of the human embryo consist in the recognition of fundamental human rights by virtue of the presence of a human being. The right to life and to physical integrity from the first moment of existence, must be respected. Recent findings of human biological science recognize that in the zygote (the cell produced when the nuclei of the two gametes have fused) resulting from fertilization, the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted.

Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in terms of man's bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore, from that same moment, the rights of a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.

Many complained about an exhibit at Penn State a few years ago which showed babies killed in the womb. I ask why not show this. Why not show the horror which man is capable of perpetrating on his fellow man to learn from history, sadly a history which we're still living. Why not educate our students as to what they are really standing for when they say that they are "pro-choice?"

Not only do I see a comparison with the "legalized" killing of babies in the womb since Roe v. Wade and the Jewish Holocaust. I see the former exceeding the latter by an order-of-magnitude. Both were the results of "man-made" laws whose results are tragic but not unpredictable since man has no law except that rooted in the Natural Law given to him by Almighty God. This moral foundation is necessary in society else anarchy reigns as what happens when A's unlimited freedom conflicts with B's? In the absence of a universal absolute law, just what can be appealed to? Thus, saying that "it's the law" is specious as Dred Scott can attest to in regard to slavery being the law of the land upheld by the Supreme Court. Both result in the brutal killing of human beings on a scale measured in the millions with the former ongoing for 37 years in The United States of America.

I would challenge those who hold to a "pro-choice" position to answer the following question. Where would you be if your mother didn't receive the Grace from God to believe that you, in her womb, at the earliest of pre-natal stages had an inalienable right to life? How dare you in your arrogance deny to others what you were blessed to receive!

---

HUMAN PERSONHOOD & A DIFFERENT MARCH FOR LIFE

January 21, 2010

by Judie Brown

The anniversary of the Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decisions decriminalizing abortion provides an excellent opportunity for pro-life Americans to reflect on what it means to be a human being. Among the most profound responses to that query is, as Francis Fernandez writes in volume three of In Conversation with God, “The most important title bestowed on human dignity is that of being the only reality of visible creation that God has loved for itself, creating it in His own image and likeness and raising it to the order of grace.” The fundamental principle that every human being is created by God in His image and likeness is the cornerstone of belief for the individual who recognizes God as his Creator, which is precisely what this nation’s founding fathers understood. This is why the Declaration of Independence contains this profound statement:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Human personhood is the only rational response to an arrogant Supreme Court that has given itself, over and over again, the authority to argue against human personhood and in defense of a woman’s right to choose to kill her own child.

The progeny of these cruel decisions, including human embryonic stem cell research, physician-assisted suicide, infanticide and more will continue to escalate until personhood is not just a word but a constitutional principle.

The Federal Human Personhood Amendment addresses this inhumane situation, specifying what we already know to be true but what the Courts have denied, “that legal personhood is granted to all human beings in the United States from the beginning of their biological development.”

Further, the text of the Amendment presents not only a clear case for recognizing the human person as having human rights from his beginning but sets forth undeniably accurate definitions which have become the hallmark for all human personhood amendments currently being pursued in the various states. The language declares ...

Section 1.
The right to life is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person.

Section 2.
With respect to the right to life guaranteed to persons by the fifth and fourteenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the word “person” applies to all human beings; irrespective of age, health, function, physical or mental ability, disability, dependence or method of reproduction; from the beginning of their biological development as human beings (i.e., as human organisms).

Section 3.
Congress and the several States, including territories under United States control, shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 4.
Definitions

Human being: Any organism, including the single-cell human embryo, irrespective of the method of reproduction, who possesses a genome specific for and consistent with an individual member of the human species.

Human organism: An individual living human being, including the single-cell human embryo, who can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow and maintain homeostasis.

Human cell: The structural, functional and biological unit of all human organisms.

Human genome: The total amount of nuclear and extranuclear DNA genetic material that constitutes an organism as an individual member of the human species—including the single-cell human embryo.

Human embryo: The term is used to define all human beings from the beginning of the embryonic period of their biological development through eight weeks; irrespective of age, health, function, physical or mental ability, disability, dependence or method of reproduction; whether in vivo or in vitro.

Human fetus: The term is used to define all human beings from the beginning of the fetal period of their biological development (the beginning of nine weeks) through birth; irrespective of age, health, function, physical or mental ability, disability, dependence or method of reproduction; whether in vivo or in vitro.

Human personhood: The legal recognition of every human being’s full status as a human person, including all the rights that accrue thereto, that applies to all human beings; irrespective of age, health, function, physical or mental ability, disability, dependence or method of reproduction; from the beginning of their biological development as human beings (i.e., as human organisms).

This language leaves no doubt about the fact that an individual human being at every stage of his life has human rights, civil rights and equal rights. These are, in fact, the very same rights envisioned by the founding fathers of this nation. Thus, it is not surprising that at long last the effort to protect human beings as human persons under the law and in the culture is catching on from coast to coast.

Recently, Deal Hudson wrote about this upsurge in support for the human personhood effort. Hudson discussed the growth of Personhood USA and the fact that even as the effort is growing, the Catholic bishops remain not merely silent but opposed to such efforts in much the same way as they were in the early 1980s.

As someone who has been around since the beginning of this struggle, it is clear that a history lesson is in order. The fact of the matter is that human personhood is not a new idea and it has not come on the scene just over the course of the past few years. It has been the bedrock principle of the pro-life struggle since the beginning. In fact, it was among the first principles enunciated by March for Life founder Nellie J. Gray. And the same principle has been repeated time and time again by many eloquent pro-life leaders including Dr. Charles E. Rice, Professor Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame Law School, who wrote about the right to life movement’s progress from 1973 to 1983:

[T]he solution to legalized abortion, in constitutional terms, is the restoration to our basic law of the principle that all human beings are persons. This was the key focus of the right-to-life movement from 1973 through 1980, which made headway because it was united in the conviction that, whatever differences might exist over wording of amendments, exceptions, etc., the essential remedy is the restoration of personhood. People can be inspired by that insistence on personhood because they can understand that if the unborn child in the womb can be defined as a non-person and deprived of his right-to- life, so can his elder brother or his grandmother.

Seen in this context, the decision of the Catholic Bishops in January, 1981, not to support the Helms-Hyde Human Life Bill (which would have affirmed the personhood of all human beings …) and to support instead the Hatch Amendment was, in my opinion, an act of folly which aggravated a growing split in the pro-life movement. Although this is not the place for an extended discussion of the Hatch Amendment controversy, [35] it must be noted that the "legislative powers" approach to abortion proposed by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and the simplified states' rights version proposed by Senator Thomas Eagleton (D-Mo.) fail to introduce the fundamental notion of the personhood of the unborn. But the positivistic denial of personhood is the error of the abortion decisions that must be corrected. In this light, therefore, these approaches are gravely deficient.

It was—and is—this so-called split within the pro-life movement that continues to pit the ideology of incrementalism against proactive strategy dedicated to protecting the human rights of every single human being from his beginning. What is needed now, as we face the beginning of the 38th year of decriminalized abortion in America, is a renewal of that zeal which consumed us in the early 1970s. Then, as now, we should be defining ourselves not in terms of our politics but in terms of our understanding of the dignity of the human person. Abortion is an act of cruelty.

Abortion is terrorism of the worst kind for it disregards humanity in deference to self interest, sexual pleasure and irresponsibility. Abortion is the antithesis of true freedom that can only be established in concert with justice for all.

Personhood is the antidote; personhood is the truth; personhood is the goal.

Just imagine a March for Life attended by hundreds of thousands who have come to rejoice because America has finally ended the most heinous war against the innocent ever waged in the history of mankind: A March FOR Life in celebration of human personhood.

Judie Brown




Home