The
greatest holocaust in the world,
going on even now, perpetrated
by the most powerful and highly
placed individuals and institutions,
is the murder in the womb of the
unborn child. Will Obama, the
staunchest pro-abortion Presidential
candidate ever, follow in the
footsteps of Hitler and Stalin?
And will you, by your vote, have
a part in this grievous and vilest
sin? If you do, may the Lord have
mercy on your soul.
Judgment
day is soon at hand. Vote for
life. Stand with Jesus.
God
bless.
frank
Just
Look: Cardinal Egan Compares Abortion
Crimes to those of Hitler, Stalin
By
Edward Cardinal Egan, Archbishop
of New York
October
27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- The picture on this page is
an untouched photograph of a
being that has been within its
mother for 20 weeks. Please
do me the favor of looking at
it carefully.
Have
you any doubt that it is a human
being?
If
you do not have any such doubt,
have you any doubt that it is
an innocent human being?
If
you have no doubt about this
either, have you any doubt that
the authorities in a civilized
society are duty-bound to protect
this innocent human being if
anyone were to wish to kill
it?
If
your answer to this last query
is negative, that is, if you
have no doubt that the authorities
in a civilized society would
be duty-bound to protect this
innocent human being if someone
were to wish to kill it, I would
suggest—even insist—that
there is not a lot more to be
said about the issue of abortion
in our society. It is wrong,
and it cannot—must not—be
tolerated.
But
you might protest that all of
this is too easy. Why, you might
inquire, have I not delved into
the opinion of philosophers
and theologians about the matter?
And even worse: Why have I not
raised the usual questions about
what a "human being"
is, what a "person"
is, what it means to be "living,"
and such? People who write books
and articles about abortion
always concern themselves with
these kinds of things. Even
the justices of the Supreme
Court who gave us "Roe
v. Wade" address them.
Why do I neglect philosophers
and theologians? Why do I not
get into defining "human
being," defining "person,"
defining "living,"
and the rest? Because, I respond,
I am sound of mind and endowed
with a fine set of eyes, into
which I do not believe it is
well to cast sand. I looked
at the photograph, and I have
no doubt about what I saw and
what are the duties of a civilized
society if what I saw is in
danger of being killed by someone
who wishes to kill it or, if
you prefer, someone who "chooses"
to kill it. In brief: I looked,
and I know what I saw.
But
what about the being that has
been in its mother for only
15 weeks or only 10? Have you
photographs of that too? Yes,
I do. However, I hardly think
it necessary to show them. For
if we agree that the being in
the photograph printed on this
page is an innocent human being,
you have no choice but to admit
that it may not be legitimately
killed even before 20 weeks
unless you can indicate with
scientific proof the point in
the development of the being
before which it was other than
an innocent human being and,
therefore, available to be legitimately
killed. Nor have Aristotle,
Aquinas or even the most brilliant
embryologists of our era or
any other era been able to do
so. If there is a time when
something less than a human
being in a mother morphs into
a human being, it is not a time
that anyone has ever been able
to identify, though many have
made guesses. However, guesses
are of no help. A man with a
shotgun who decides to shoot
a being that he believes may
be a human being is properly
hauled before a judge. And hopefully,
the judge in question knows
what a "human being"
is and what the implications
of someone's wishing to kill
it are. The word "incarceration"
comes to mind.
However,
we must not stop here. The matter
becomes even clearer and simpler
if you obtain from the National
Geographic Society two extraordinary
DVDs. One is entitled "In
the Womb" and illustrates
in color and in motion the development
of one innocent human being
within its mother. The other
is entitled "In the Womb—Multiples"
and in color and motion shows
the development of two innocent
human beings—twin boys—within
their mother. If you have ever
allowed yourself to wonder,
for example, what "living"
means, these two DVDs will be
a great help. The one innocent
human being squirms about, waves
its arms, sucks its thumb, smiles
broadly and even yawns; and
the two innocent human beings
do all of that and more: They
fight each other. One gives
his brother a kick, and the
other responds with a sock to
the jaw. If you can convince
yourself that these beings are
something other than living
and innocent human beings, something,
for example, such as "mere
clusters of tissues," you
have a problem far more basic
than merely not appreciating
the wrongness of abortion. And
that problem is—forgive
me—self-deceit in a most
extreme form.
Adolf
Hitler convinced himself and
his subjects that Jews and homosexuals
were other than human beings.
Joseph Stalin did the same as
regards Cossacks and Russian
aristocrats.
And this despite the fact that
Hitler and his subjects had
seen both Jews and homosexuals
with their own eyes, and Stalin
and his subjects had seen both
Cossacks and Russian aristocrats
with theirs. Happily, there
are few today who would hesitate
to condemn in the roundest terms
the self-deceit of Hitler, Stalin
or even their subjects to the
extent that the subjects could
have done something to end the
madness and protect living,
innocent human beings.
It
is high time to stop pretending
that we do not know what this
nation of ours is allowing—and
approving—with the killing
each year of more than 1,600,000
innocent human beings within
their mothers. We know full
well that to kill what is clearly
seen to be an innocent human
being or what cannot be proved
to be other than an innocent
human being is as wrong as wrong
gets. Nor can we honorably cover
our shame (1) by appealing to
the thoughts of Aristotle or
Aquinas on the subject, inasmuch
as we are all well aware that
their understanding of matters
embryological was hopelessly
mistaken, (2) by suggesting
that "killing" and
"choosing to kill"
are somehow distinct ethically,
morally or criminally, (3) by
feigning ignorance of the meaning
of "human being,"
"person," "living,"
and such, (4) by maintaining
that among the acts covered
by the right to privacy is the
act of killing an innocent human
being, and (5) by claiming that
the being within the mother
is "part" of the mother,
so as to sustain the oft-repeated
slogan that a mother may kill
or authorize the killing of
the being within her "because
she is free to do as she wishes
with her own body."
One
day, please God, when the stranglehold
on public opinion in the United
States has been released by
the extremists for whom abortion
is the center of their political
and moral life, our nation will,
in my judgment, look back on
what we have been doing to innocent
human beings within their mothers
as a crime no less heinous than
what was approved by the Supreme
Court in the "Dred Scott
Case" in the 19th century,
and no less heinous than what
was perpetrated by Hitler and
Stalin in the 20th. There is
nothing at all complicated about
the utter wrongness of abortion,
and making it all seem complicated
mitigates that wrongness not
at all. On the contrary, it
intensifies it.
Do
me a favor. Look at the photograph
again. Look and decide with
honesty and decency what the
Lord expects of you and me as
the horror of "legalized"
abortion continues to erode
the honor of our nation. Look,
and
do not absolve yourself if you
refuse to act.
Edward
Cardinal Egan
Archbishop of New York
"For
to me life is Christ, and death
is gain." (Phil 1:21)