Abortion and Two Historic Parallels
by Dr. Hart Bezner
It is difficult to evaluate a moral crisis while in the midst of it, torn by diametrically opposed arguments. But once a moral crisis has resolved itself, even if only partially, it is much easier to look back upon it and to comprehend the real issues. Without the perspective of time, grasping right and wrong can be elusive.
The abortion debate is evidence that we are in the midst of a moral crisis. The arguments on both sides are strong and persuasive. Many good people are bewildered and unable to judge the moral significance of the debate.
We can profit greatly by looking into the recent past where two similar moral issues erupted and were partially resolved. We are far enough removed from both to evaluate them much more objectively than the original participants were able to do. I am referring to slavery in the Western World and also to the more recent Nazi era.
The abortion issue, the slavery issue and the Nazi episode are strikingly similar in moral content. All three involve the arbitrary devaluation of human life, and the accompanying moral confusion follows basically the same tragic pattern.
Through the wisdom born of hindsight, we feel today that slavery was an evil institution and we applaud those who risked much in opposing it. At the same time we find it difficult to comprehend the thinking of those who supported it.
For those who lived during the slavery period, the issue was not nearly that simple. There was great moral confusion. There were those who insisted that slaves were personal property, to be held like other property. Some claimed that slavery was a Christian institution and that it was a positive good because it gave the heathens from Africa the elements of a Christian civilisation. Such statements were accepted by many despite the grossest of injustices. Paulding, U.S. Secretary of the Navy recalled a discussion with a slave-trader in 1817. The trader related: "Many is the time I have separated wives from husbands and husbands from wives, and parents from children. But then I made them amends by marring them again as soon as I had a chance. That is to say, I made them call each other man and wife, and sleep together, which is quite enough for Negroes."
RAPE OF SLAVES
Branding, whipping and splitting of families at sales were common. Slave women could be violated freely whether married or not. Those who ran away were hunted down with bloodhounds, wantonly shot and mutilated. The rape of female slaves was regarded as trespassing on the owner’s property. No penalties were imposed if the slaves died under punishment, and even deliberate killing of a slave cost the owner only a 50 pound fine in some states.
There were great statesmen, philosophers and churchmen who denounced the evil of slavery, but they were easily outnumbered by those who condoned it. There were antislavery groups who conducted public meetings to arouse the consciences of men. There was massive confusion in the churches. A study of the period shows that there was a strong anti-slavery spirit in the churches during the late 1700’s but by 1830 most became lukewarm, indifferent and some even tried to justify the evil in their midst. Outstanding were the Quakers who, once they became conscious of the great injustice, rejected it actively. They expelled from their fellowship those who failed to free their slaves.
In 1870 the Methodist Church condemned slavery as ‘contrary to the laws of God, man and nature, and hurtful to society.’ Four years later, all slaveholders were given 12 months to free their slaves or be expelled from the congregations. John Wesley condemned slavery as the sum of all villainies. In 1801 the Methodist Church reaffirmed its strong anti-slavery stand. Conferences were directed to circulate petitions to the governments of various states. Soon, however, it was felt that circulating petitions was sufficient and the church spoke less and less loudly against the evil.
The same happened in other denominations, and slavery came to be regarded as a political issue rather than a crucial moral issue to which the Church was compelled to address itself. It was not recognised that the evil could not be legislated out of existence without changing the hearts of men. As it turned out, political action ultimately did away with slavery as a system, but the hearts of the slaveholders were not regenerated. As a consequence, the free Negro is still oppressed and the violence against him must surely be as evil as slavery itself.
Returning to the abortion issue we find great similarities.
The society has come to accept that the unborn is somehow inferior and that he may be killed at will. There is no logical or scientific basis for the belief in his inferiority. There is massive confusion in the society and many are unable to comprehend the morality of the issue. The organised church, with some notable exceptions, has also demonstrated confusion. Just as there were churches 150 years ago which openly encouraged the government to maintain the institution of slavery, we now find denominations which actively encourage the government to extend the country’s abortion activities. We even find clergymen involved in counselling abortion and defending it in public. Their hollow arguments that abortion is the lesser of two evils or even a loving act, eerily echoes the statement that slavery may be regarded as being a positive good.
The parallel between abortion and slavery is so remarkable, that if we apply the same standards of right and wrong in both cases, then abortion must be judged as a monstrous evil. There is also a warning that the issue cannot be resolved on a political level. If the hearts of men cannot be changed then surely legislation will not contain the problem either. Another warning can be derived when we realise that most of the major denominations at one time actively opposed slavery but within a few decades became reconciled to it, encouraged it an even actively participated in it.
THE NAZI PROCESS
The Nazi era is recent history, but already it may be viewed as a closed chapter in human history. It again teaches us about the tendency within the heart of man to abuse and enslave his brothers. The process is simple. You merely convince yourself that you are superior and somehow entitled to dominate the lives and happiness of others. There was a ruthless philosophy at work segregating humans into superior and inferior components. The inferior were again subdivided into useful and useless. The useless ones were killed and the useful ones were enslaved by the millions. The deadly philosophy did not originate with Hitler although it expressed itself through him. As early as 1928 we encounter youngsters in public school engrossed in mathematics. One of the problems mentions that it costs so and so much to support an old, useless woman per year, while it costs so and so much to provide housing for a newly married couple. How many such housing units could be provided if it were not necessary to keep one million elderly women alive?
The process is subtle, but the old woman loses her status as a human being. The medical profession cooperated fully with Hitler. They became his killing machine. Within a few years they killed an estimated 278,000 mental patients and other ‘misfits’. Finally there were many children and elderly people. The doctors participated so actively that they were soon willing to participate in the mass killings in the concentration camps. Much of their. work was done in the interest of science, They wanted to discover, for example, how long a human being could survive in sub-freezing water. Dozens of unwilling victims found themselves strapped down in tanks of ice-cold water. Their screams could be heard far and wide. The experiments confirmed what was already known from the fate of German fliers downed in the North Sea, that the human body can survive under such conditions for approximately half an hour. The doctors were also attempting to discover a more effective blood coagulant. It was brought to their attention that many soldiers died in the battle field due to heavy loss of blood when they lost a limb? The research involved selecting, inmates from concentration camps, fully conscience to simulate actual conditions more closely and severing an arm. The researches observed with a stopwatch.
There were a1so interesting experiments involving human steri1ization. Special desks were developed with strong x-ray sources concealed within them. Prisoners: were asked to sit at these desks to fill out an extensive questionnaire. At the same time they received heavy dose of x-rays in the genital area. The dosages were far too intense and many suffered severe burns. The ovaries or testicles of the victims were removed about two weeks later and studied to see, how effectively they had been destroyed. There was no regard for the suffering of the victims in the same callous ,manner in which negro slaves were branded, maimed or castrated. They were only objects.
It is frequently argued that it is not necessary to paint such grim pictures and that this is an attempt to appeal to the emotions. I see no reason to conceal the truth. Let the truth speak in all of its perverted ugliness so that we might see reality.
While there is phenomenal similarity between Negro slavery and Nazi devaluation of human beings, a new and dangerous element appears as well. It is the emergence of the physician as a mass killer. It is significant that Hitler did not force any doctor to kill, but they assumed the responsibilities rather willingly, some with indecent haste, The role of the medical profession in the atrocities during the Nazi era is well documented but virtually unknown. It is not taught in the medical schools and rarely mentioned in our history classes. It is so easy to forget and therefore so easily repeated.
Again returning to the abortion issue. Not only do we find a certain class of humans devaluated and abused, but again we find the medical profession in the forefront of the killings. Canadian doctors have killed approximately 165,000 human beings since parliament freed their hand in 1969. They are acting freely and voluntarily. Their actions cannot be defended by sane and moral men. It is true that there are good men among them; men who are motivated by the highest ideals, but as a social group, they are the mass killers of the society. In only six years thy have learned the art of mass destruction. What will the next six years hold for us?
To show that the medical profession cannot be forced to kill we only need to recall an event in occupied Holland. On December 19,1941, the Reich Commissar of the Netherland Territories issued an order requiring all doctors to report incurably ill patients. The physicians of Holland rejected this order unanimously. When the Reich Commissar threatened to withdraw their licenses, they returned their licenses and removed their shingles, and continued to see their patients secretly. They refused, however, to issue birth or death certificates. The Commissar, Seiss-Inquart, retraced his steps and attempted to gain cooperation in a more friendly manner. The Dutch physicians refused. He then arrested 100 of the doctors and shipped them off to the concentration camps, but the remaining ones remained more adamant than ever, and quietly provided for the widows and orphans. Thus it came about that not a single Euthanasia nor non-therapeutic sterilisation was participated in by any Dutch physician. They are outstanding since they did not take even the smallest step to compromise their ethical foundation. They acted unanimously and they won out in the end. They should be a model to our own physicians who feel they can’t refuse when requested to kill.
killed in large numbers, but we have devaluated our own lives. We have permitted a philosophy to run wild which measures the worth of human lives in terms of money. Six years ago we were of great value because we were human beings, but today we all have a different worth. Some more and other less. This is the real issue at stake when we consider abortion. May good men speak boldly against this hideous reappearance of an ancient evil.
(This article was originally published in The Catholic Register, Nov. 9,1974. Reprinted with permission.)