Spermicide for the mind
You know, just when I think those fetus worshippers can't get any crazier, I stumble on stuff like this.
The experimentation on Jews was a legal and medical procedure. The unborn are experimented on because they are the unborn.
It's in reference to the persistent use of the Holocaust as a metaphor for abortion.
This has been employed by many anti-choicers in their fight to denigrate women who have terminated their pregnancies. As if these women are Nazis who have rounded up millions for gassing and tortuous ''medical'' experimentation.
No wonder some Jewish groups have begun to protest.
Now normally I would dismiss a blogger like this as some fringe type. But she's not, at least not as far as the fetophiles are concerned. In fact, she pretty much represents their way of thinking, as you can read in this post of mine from last week.
That's really stretching an analogy. It's completely singleminded. Grab anything that might serve as a hammer and bang that nail. We can only hope it discredits future words out of her mouth.
Posted by: ...pat. | February 11, 2009 at 08:53 PM
The purpose is not to denigrate women. That's an interpretation feminists impose on the abortion/holocaust comparison.
The point is to discuss the mental process that leads to killing human beings. First de-humanize them, deny them humanity, then you can kill them en masse.
That's the history of oppression.
And you know, the white supremacists of old used to try to denigrate those who stood up for the rights of blacks. They were "n*ggger lovers". There was something mentally wrong with people who stood up for those sub-humans, in their view.
A "fetophile" is just the 21st century's n*gger lover.
Posted by: SUZANNE | February 12, 2009 at 09:51 AM
Love, love, love the illustration!
Posted by: Hayley | February 12, 2009 at 10:08 AM
I don't want to denigrate women. Personally, I believe that comparing the holocaust to abortion is more of a comparison of society in general than accusing individual women of a crime. Women have been told over and over that they are victims and that life ends when they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy. As if we were weak creatures, incapable of overcoming adversity. That, to me, is anti-feminist thinking. I was once faced with an unwanted pregnancy. I can understand the wanting it to go away. It took awhile for me to work up the courage to get a home pregnancy test. I didn't want to know for sure. I wanted there to be still a chance that it wasn't true. When I finally did the test, and knew for sure, I knew I couldn't abort the baby. But I did consider going into hiding and then putting him up for adoption. But I couldn't do that either.
What I find deplorable is that adoption is not given the same importance as abortion. Do we have governement supported adoption? Are there advertisements for adoption? Do we promote adoption? Has the government made it easier for a childless couple to adopt? Do we portray adoption in a positive manner? Do we let mothers know that they can still continue to be a presence in the lives of their children(godmother, "auntie", close family friend... whatever) even if they put them up for adoption, if they so desire. I think not.
Do we provide women with all the services available to them if they decide to bring up their child themselves? So we have support for student mothers at University?
I think not. When a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, very often the only option she is presented with is abortion. The "easy" way out.
Unfortunately many women are actually victims of the "easy way out" instead. Mourning the loss of their child and feeling guilty for years. Maybe not all, but many. I feel for these women who were told that abortion was the only way, and that continuing their pregnancy was crazy, or impossible, or would ruin their lives, or even in some cases, was completely immoral (bringing too many children into the world, or bringing children into poverty.) I grew up poor, but we were happy. Probably much happier than a lot of lonely rich kids.
Therein lies the "holocaust comparison" that life is not sacred. Women are just as much victims of the "holocaust" as are the babies themselves.
Posted by: Jeanne | February 12, 2009 at 11:17 AM
All life is sacred from conception to natural death. It has been scientifically proven that babies in utero feel pain. I hate to be the one to judge whether the fetus is formed enough to feel pain.
Posted by: Dianne Wood | February 12, 2009 at 12:14 PM
The fact that women with unplanned pregnancies are rarely encouraged to adopt and find it very difficult to find information or support if they are inclined to make such a decision tells a lot. It's certainly not pro-woman or "choice". The weight is overwhelmingly anti-baby.
The unborn child, at any stage - even a day befor birth - is not considered a human being by most of Canada's institutions. Women in unplanned, crisis pregnancy situations are overwhelmingly told to "get rid of it". The "it" is clearly a tiny human but is acknowedged as such only if it is "wanted". If it is not "wanted", it is classified as not being human. That is bizarre and devoid of all logic, ethics and science. Pure ideology.
So, if over 100,000 of these tiny humans are gotten rid of (that is, dismembered alive, killed) every year in Canada, that is not a holocaust??? What then do you call such a massive annual killing, year after year? What other strong word can someone suggest would convey the same horror of it all?
Posted by: Steve Jalsevac | February 12, 2009 at 01:12 PM
Antonia: It's a metaphor. Clearly, it's an effective one, since it gets the anti-lifers talking. And thinking. If there's one thing the anti-lifers don't want women doing, it's thinking. Thinking that abortion just might not be a right.
Why no links to "some Jewish groups have begun to protest", by the way?
Posted by: Ulrika | February 12, 2009 at 03:06 PM
Thanks for your comment Steve but I am troubled by this:
''The fact that women with unplanned pregnancies are rarely encouraged to adopt''
First of all, most women are aware of all of their options. We are not as stupid as anti-choicers like to make us out to be.
Second, we don't adopt. We go through pregnancies, endanger our health, lose sleep, endure painful deliveries, give up babies to whom we may become bonded after birth, interrupt our careers, suffer from social finger-pointing etc. so OTHERS can adopt.
Third, nobody has an abortion a day before birth. Late term pregnancies are extremely rare in Canada and are always performed to save the mother's life.
As for Holocausts, please see tomorrow's column in the paper.
Posted by: Antonia | February 12, 2009 at 03:54 PM
"First de-humanize them, deny them humanity, then you can kill them en masse."
I guess there is a point upon which we concur-- I will deny a tiny clump of cells humanity. Because said clump is not a human. The insubstantiality of a few-weeks old embryo is mind-boggling. To compare an actual human being to this is a far more reprehensible denial of humanity than any I can imagine.
Posted by: KC | February 12, 2009 at 04:06 PM
Ulrike: Why no links to "some Jewish groups have begun to protest", by the way?
The blogger to whom I link actually cites one group. Have a look.
http://bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2009/02/abortion-and-holocaustthe-analogy-holds.html
"To compare a legal and medical procedure, whether you agree with the law or not, with the systematic murder of six million men, women and children simply because they were Jews, is wrong and totally unacceptable to the Jewish community," says Jon Goldberg, executive director of the Atlantic Jewish Council.
Posted by: Antonia | February 12, 2009 at 04:37 PM
Late-term abortions may be rare but they do happen here in Canada. It would be a lie to state that late-term abortions are only performed to save the mother's life. Instead of abortion, why not deliver the baby early so that the mother and her child can both have a chance at life?
Posted by: Natalie Colton | February 12, 2009 at 04:53 PM
"Second, we don't adopt. We go through pregnancies, endanger our health, lose sleep, endure painful deliveries, give up babies to whom we may become bonded after birth, interrupt our careers, suffer from social finger-pointing etc. so OTHERS can adopt."
Legal abortions can endager your health & make you lose sleep. I know of women who've suffered physicaly and/or emotionaly becasue they chose abortion. Abortion hurts women.
A fetus is not just a clump of tissue... it's a tiny human being.
Posted by: Natalie Colton | February 12, 2009 at 05:04 PM
Antonia, I can understand why the Holocaust comparison makes you uncomfortable - I'd hate to have my personal opinions likened to a horrific mass murder of unimaginable scale - but surely you don't actually think the comparison is being used to denigrate women? If you really think it is, can you be a little more clear on your reasoning?
Also, you mention that a woman carrying a child to birth risks her health (really?), career, or social standing. You imply that the only recourse to this sort of misogynistic oppression is abortion. So a woman must sacrifce someone she 'may bond with', rather than expect any support from her family, community or society. That's a great rebuttal - really - it's very informative.
Posted by: CO | February 12, 2009 at 05:28 PM
"To compare a legal and medical procedure, whether you agree with the law or not, with the systematic murder of six million men, women and children simply because they were Jews, is wrong and totally unacceptable to the Jewish community," says Jon Goldberg, executive director of the Atlantic Jewish Council.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Even though I'm not a Catholic, Pope John Paul II when he declared abortion to be the biggest holocaust was right on the money. First, the term Holocaust is often misused.
"Holocaust
The term holocaust, with origins in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translates the Hebrew expression olah as holokauston, meaning "a burnt sacrifice" (Berenbaum 2000, p. 31). Deeply imbued with religious meaning, the expression is presently most closely associated with the Nazi policy of mass murder directed against European Jewry. In a century when over 140 million people died in wars, the Holocaust may long be the ultimate symbol of inhumanity.
The meaning of Holocaust is itself fraught with great controversy. Some, like the historian Walter Lacquer, insist that the expression is "singularly inappropriate" because of its religious connotations (Lacquer 1980, p. 7). Elie Wiesel, a survivor of Auschwitz and the Nobel Prize–winning author of Night (1960), is often credited with introducing the word into popular usage."
Also the facts about the jewish holocaust I don't agree with and therefore don't think comparing it to the murder of unborn children to be appropriate.
What about the 10 000 000 starved in the Holomodor?
What about the 20 000 000 worked to death in the Gulags?
The bombing of Hiroshima?
Why does 6 000 000 always take the priority?
Posted by: Andrew | February 12, 2009 at 06:05 PM
If the commentary about her is to be beleived and I do beleive it , than she hasnt changed at all . She is still rude abnoxious and I would add ignorant to the description. As to all of you speaking about the inhumanity of the unborn child , the group of cells. Hey how did you people start out? Same group of cells, but different parents. Dont you people think that our right to be heard is at least as important as yours , because I know that we do have that right and beleive me it was not won by the now Feminist movement but a group of dedicated Canadian woman fighting for much different rights than to kill the unborn. If I beleived in a persons right to kill then I would pick some of you as prime candidates. But my beleif is that all have the right to live. So I guess we just have to suffer you people and the likes of this columnist.
Posted by: Valerie Edwards | February 12, 2009 at 07:45 PM
Thanks for your comments. Some replies:
Andrew, let's not get fixated on the Holocaust, or compare whose pain and suffering was greater, shall we? The anti-choicers chose that metaphor, not I. The use the word ''genocide'' and emply images from concentration camps.
Natalie, if a fetus is a tiny human being it would be perfectly capable of existing outside a woman's body. It isn't. End of story. Also, the late-term abortion percentage is a fraction of a fraction in Canada. That issue is a red herring.
CO, I would ask the woman doing the ''sacrificing'' what is being ''sacrificed.'' I think you will find that it's much more complex than you suggest.
I will have more on this issue in tomorrow's column on www.thestar.ca
Posted by: Antonia | February 12, 2009 at 07:52 PM
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. Either don't have sexual relations so you're not going to get pregnant, or carry the baby to term. It's your choice.
But don't foist your choice on others. That is what being pro-choice is all about. You can choose to have your baby, adopt it out, keep it, have your parents rear it as your sister or brother. That is all fine and good.
Telling other women that they have to adhere to your religious beliefs, your choices, and your decisions: that's neither fine nor good. Nor choice.
Legislation should not be reopened on this subject.
Posted by: ...pat. | February 12, 2009 at 08:07 PM
There were also millions of Christians and others put to death
in the Holocaust.
Posted by: Kathleen Gray | February 12, 2009 at 10:55 PM
Dianne: First the feeling of pain argument has not been scientifically proven. .... Before thalamic connections exist to the cortex, (22 weeks) responses to noxious stimuli are reflexes..
Why pro-life people think this argument will “sway” women is beyond me.........I'm pasting a statement by a anti-choicer who actually sees stupidity in the argument.
Douglas R. Scott, president of Life Decisions International, worried that arguing "pain to the fetus" will only mean requests for anesthesia...which might make women more likely to go through with an abortion. "The mother can believe she is making a benevolent choice, even as she simultaneously participates in a heinous act," he wrote on Christian Newswire. "I can hear it now. 'At least the fetus didn't feel pain...'"
Jean and Steve:
You are denegrating women! It's offensive that you imply abortion is something us poor dimwitted women are coerced into. Women are fully capable of making correct choices for themselves
Anti-Baby? From what I see, Pro-lifers spread misleading information and use fear mongering and physcological warfare. Comparing women to Nazis, calling it the "easy way out" (yet at the same time explaining the easyway out leads to a lifetime of guilt and mourning - yah, really easy),telling women that abortion causes breast cancer, is just sick.
When you wake up today, you should get off your self righteous high horse. While you drink your coffee think of all the child slaves that lost their lives so you can have your perk. Look at your pyjamas and pray to god that the child who sewed them didn't lose another finger. How many kid's did you kill today so you could purchase useless crap at low prices?
You all seem to forget about that. How convenient. I suppose loudly opposing abortion is kind of like off setting that guilt. No wonder the most stringent anti-choicers vote conservative regardless of their promotion of selfishness (oops I mean individual freedom) and their total lack of empathy and regard for their fellow man. All they have to do is hold up the anti-abortion card and you line up like sheep, selfishly hoping it will give you a get in free pass at the pearly gates.
It doesn’t matter how horrific pro-lifers present abortion. It is a deeper issue. It is an issue, regardless of a women's stance ( for/against), that sounds off alarm bells. The inequality of women is very obvious.....especially to women.
Women are not valued as equals, the pro-life philosophy is an attack against our reproductive rights...or an attack simply for being a women.
That's why polls show Canadians believe in choice. Most Canadians get what's at stake. A National Post poll from November 2002 (there are many, many polls like this) found 78% of respondents answered "yes" to the question: "Should women have complete freedom on their decision to have an abortion?".
In a June 2008 Angus Reid Strategies poll found only 5% of Canadians would outlaw abortion altogether.
So....the majority of people, including those who personally disagree with abortion, agree it is still a women’s choice.
You need to wake up and look around at the inequality women face at home and worldwide. When you have governments that force abortions of female fetuses (because the women have NO choice - No is also a choice), governments that view women as nothing more than incubators, and the fact that the majority of anti-choice leaders are men (an estimated 70%) who happen to be the same ones who promote the insane “True Women Manifesto” (god ordained female submission to the man) the majority of women will stand together stronger. Women have no other option than to protect ourselves.
Pro-Choice is really a matter of survival for women.
Instead of sticking your nose where it doesn't belong, I suggest you look in the mirror and then start picking your own cotton, sewing your own clothes, growing your own coffee beans, and stop shopping at Wal-Mart.
Posted by: Barb Pearce | February 13, 2009 at 04:18 AM
Antonia,
I read your column this morning. It's easier to comment here, though. :)
In regards to the whole anti-abortion/holocaust thing... I have a question. Where is the sex education? Why is no one pushing a more standardized sex ed across both school systems? Why is sex ed a few minutes of blushed giggling and diagrams of body parts? Abortion numbers would drop significantly if people were educated on how to have safe sex.
But they aren't.
I have a friend who thinks that you can tell when a person has an STD - in fact, I have a few friends who think this, but lets keep it to the one for now. She thinks a person with HIV/AIDS "looks sick" and so she would know better than to have sex with them. Sure in this knowledge she relies exclusivly on the pill, exposing herself to disease and accidental pregnancy. My friend took the same sex ed classes that I did; I have no idea how I came out of class with a desire to be safe and she came out thinking you can spot a person with AIDS as easily as you can spot a cloud in the sky.
I will blame the inconsistency in class and my parent's decision to give me sex ed on their own; I had "the talk" more than once, frequently backed up with newspaper or magazine articles... and videos. My Parents are awesome. I came out knowing that I should only have sex with a trusted/monogamous partner, only if I am on the pill, my partner uses a condom (with spermicide) and after we have both been tested.
Unlike many of my friends, I have never had an abortion. I would have one if it were needed and am thankful that I have the choice, but I know enough to skew the odds in my favor to prevent the need as much as possible.
Why, when the anti-choice crowd tells us that abortion=holocaust, do they not back it up with telling us how we can not get ourselves knocked up in the first place? Why are we told that our only options are to be murderers or baby-making machines?
I don't get it.
Posted by: neko | February 13, 2009 at 08:05 AM
Perhaps if there wasn't such a social stigma attached to being a single mother, or, God forbid, a "welfare mother" -- a stigma enthusiastically promoted by the same fundie whackjobs who shriek about abortion being murder -- many women might view an unplanned pregnancy as a joyous, rather than horrifically traumatizing, event.
But the anti-choicers aren't really interested in "human life"...it's all about punishing women for having sex. For these people, life begins at conception and ends at birth.
Posted by: Chris Moorehead | February 13, 2009 at 09:14 AM
The issue is not on who has rights or sole right to the word holocaust but on the rights of another human entity from our species to live.
Posted by: Rachael | February 13, 2009 at 10:18 AM
EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION!!!!!
These days most women have no clue where we were, what we did, and how we got to where we are.
Women don't learn about "Women's History" until they get to College or University....and then only if they choose to take it. Let's not forget that those who can't afford it, don't ever learn of Women's history. Most young women of today view the fight for women's rights as something that happened in the past. I'm sure they suspect there are still issues, but then think, no, the battle was fought and won...the war is over.
The 2008 Angus reid poll also showed that wealthy, university educatated people were more likely to be pro-choice. Why? Because they could afford to go to University and learn. There is also a direct correlation between Fundamentalism and education level. The higher ones education level is, the less likely one is to be a Fundementalist. Fundamentalist women in particular, have a lower education level....making them easy prey for misogynists.
We should petition the government to have women's history starting in grade school......
We need education to "Save Us"
Posted by: Barb Pearce | February 13, 2009 at 11:37 AM
I'm not looking to outlaw abortion because people would still find ways to have them. I just want to make it unthinkable. In order to do that, people need to know what an abortion really is and they need to learn about the development of the unborn child. It's truly amazing how two people can create an entirely seperate being.
Prevention is also key to unexpected pregnancies... sex education should start at home though, not at school. When I was in high school, it was a big joke for my friends and I to learn about sex, condoms, "the pill" and STDs from some stranger. Parents need to be more involved in their kids' lives. I think everyone soon to be parent should take parenting classes and everyone with children should make their children a priority. Then there would be less "unwanted" pregnancies.
Posted by: Natalie Colton | February 13, 2009 at 11:39 AM
@Valerie
You write: "Natalie, if a fetus is a tiny human being it would be perfectly capable of existing outside a woman's body. It isn't. End of story."
Excuse me! - This is absolutely NOT the end of the story! Please THINK: Are we not constantly taking care of human beings that are not capable of existing outside of a woman's body?
How about
* Premature babies
* Babies born with any of a vast array of birth defects
No medical effort is spared to save those; and rightly so! And we could go even further to include anyone that requires assistance to physically remain alive because of a handicap/challenge (any disability, the elderly,...). It rightly is a crime to kill any of those just as much as it is to kill a healthy person (i.e. a person capable of living by him/herself) (e.g. Latimer case).
What I try to get you to understand is that if there is any difference, it is only a GRADUAL change in degree of dependency. Who are we to pretend we can decide which degree of dependence is worth living and which is not?!??! If we protect one, we cannot deny protection to the other. End of story.
Posted by: Bibo | February 13, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Correction: my last comment should have read @Antonia ... sorry.
Posted by: Bibo | February 13, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Nazi Germany death camps killed 6 million Canajun abortionists 4.5 million plus or minus so far.
We're 3/4's as bad.
I think the life begins at birth is the silliest discussion.
If my relative was born 6 months after conception and alive deserving rights etc. Why is it ok to kill other babies 7 months after conception?
Besides if a gay gene is ever located you are going to see hundreds of headlines saying you can't abort them but if the child has a cleft pallate kill em. Yes it's been done.
Good pic of the nuts at the star clinging on to fringe ideas while their market share is slipping away. Parfect.
Posted by: gary | February 13, 2009 at 03:38 PM
"people need to know what an abortion really is and they need to learn about the development of the unborn child"
Yeh. Thanks for educating all of us people. All us stupid people figured an abortion was another word for tonsillectomy.
Posted by: Barb Pearce | February 13, 2009 at 03:50 PM
"It's truly amazing how two people can create an entirely seperate being."
Not really, Natalie. It's pretty much the same biology as two grasses creating a new grass seed.
Posted by: ...pat. | February 13, 2009 at 07:53 PM
Antonia regardless of whether the gestational size is that of a lentil, 2,4 6,or 9 months the outcome is still the same a son or daughter of the human species
Posted by: Rachael | February 14, 2009 at 12:00 PM
"It's truly amazing how two people can create an entirely seperate being."
Not really, Natalie. It's pretty much the same biology as two grasses creating a new grass seed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations @ Barb Pearce!! You've just shown the same inhumanity towards human life as the Nazi's and "the final solution". If we could all start thinking more like this, that human life is no different than a plant, it'd be so much easier to watch suffering happening in the world. Just like in the fall when the flowers die, so do people. Beautiful.
Posted by: Andrew | February 14, 2009 at 05:15 PM
"Instead of sticking your nose where it doesn't belong, I suggest you look in the mirror and then start picking your own cotton, sewing your own clothes, growing your own coffee beans, and stop shopping at Wal-Mart."
What makes you think that pro-lifers don't sew, or buy fair-trade coffee (since it can't be grown in Canada's climate) or that we all shop at Walmart? By the way, I also happen to compost, recycle, and use re-usable bags. I'm on board with groups such as the SOA Watch and Amnesty International. I have sent countless e-mails to Presidents and Prime Ministers about the situation in Darfur, and I have read about slavery in Sudan and donated to anti--slavery groups. You can't label people you don't know, just because you disagree with them on one subject.
And for what it is worth, recognizing that women who find themselves in a difficult situation may not be able to think clearly (step away from the situation and look at it without emotion clouding it); or that they may be co-erced into abortion by people around them, ie boyfriends threatening to leave, or in the case of at least one (young at the time) friend of mine, parents telling them it is their only option; or that things might look so bad, that abortion seems the only solution (in cases of adultery for example), does not mean we think women are stupid.
Posted by: Jeanne | February 14, 2009 at 08:17 PM
Andrew, you were quoting me, not Barb.
It's an easy and farcical jump to go from what I said to an assumption that I have shown inhumanity by my comment. As easy and farcical as it would be for me to jump to the conclusion that you must be a raging creationist, because of an apparent belief in human exceptionalism.
Neither of those leaps is going to accomplish anything. Michelle has done an excellent job of dissecting the errors of the Nazi comparison in another thread: http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2009/02/genocide-gap.html#comments
You may want to consider what your goals are: if you're hoping to convince women to not have abortions, you need to rethink your strategy.
Posted by: ...pat. | February 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Jeanne said "What makes you think that pro-lifers don't sew, or buy fair-trade coffee (since it can't be grown in Canada's climate) or that we all shop at Walmart?"
Funny I can't remember the last time a pro-life member picketed outside Wal-Mart or lobbied the Harpercon government to ban Wal-Mart, Nestle, or the other murderers from our Country.
I guess the ability to breath air on ones own makes murder not so bad.....
Posted by: Barb Pearce | February 15, 2009 at 01:55 PM
I must say, these pro-life people must have very busy lives.
Their convictions must lead them to not only convince women not to have abortions, but they most promise to adopt some. They must have at least 4 children each! Wow, that is conviction.
At the very least, they must have 3 jobs in order to supplement the mother's income and must feel joy in helping the mom raise the child.
I didn't realize it, but that must mean there are no children left to adopt!!!! Especially, the older ones. Their mother's did the right thing in having the children. So now the pro-lifer's must be doing the right thing in adopting them.
God Bless!!!!!
Wow!!!!! That is fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!
oh wait.....
Posted by: Barb Pearce | February 15, 2009 at 02:48 PM