Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn
Mary Meehan, The Progressive, September 1980
It is out of character for the Left to neglect the weak and
helpless. The traditional mark of the Left has been its protection of
the underdog, the weak, and the poor. The unborn child is the most
helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor
tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas.
The basic instinct of the Left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves
-- and that instinct is absolutely sound.
Mary Meehan, Human Life Review, Spring 2001
In its long and relentless campaign against the right to
life of unborn children, the ACLU has violated its own traditions and
principles in a radical way. Here the champion of the defenseless turns
the power of government against the most defenseless human beings. The
defender of equal rights supports a two-tiered view of humanity, with
those on the lower tier having no rights at all.
The Left's Surrender on
Issues of Human Value
By Jim Trageser, The American Reporter
Time was, folks calling themselves progressives dismissed
any attempts to quantify -- or even qualify -- the value of human life
as inherently right-wing. And that we had obligations to one another --
that to threaten any of us was to threaten us all. That no one ever had
a right to inflict harm on another except in self-defense.Those days
are, sadly, long gone. In fact, the term "progressive" is hardly
recognizable anymore what with so many who claim the heritage of the
Left instead advocating policies drawn from the furthest reaches of the
right. From abortion to assisted suicide, there is a steady erosion of
leftist support for the value of human life. But there is nothing at all
progressive about abortion - it is as reactionary a practice as one
Naomi Wolf accuses the
abortion-rights movement of a "lexicon of dehumanization" and "charges
that it has produced "a series of self-delusions, fibs, and evasions,"
forcing the men and women who are part of it to run the risk of losing
what "can only be called [their] soul." Though willing to grant the
dimension of personal morality which attaches to abortion as a
consequence of the humanity of the unborn child, Wolf fails to carry
through fully in her analysis; when Wolf declares that "freedom means
that women must be free to choose self or to choose selfishly," even
though this means the death of another human being, we cannot help but
respond that this simply is not, or should not be, the unqualified
response of our society to the destruction of innocent life.
A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing: Language and
the Abortion Debate
by Kathryn Getek and Mark Cunningham, Princeton
Progressive Review, February 1996
Abortion - A Liberal Cause?
by Jefferis Kent Peterson
Abortion has been numbered among
the liberal causes of modern politics. But a careful examination of the
history of the abortion rights movement would shock even the most ardent
defender of a woman's right to choose. The founders of the movement
were in fact racists who despised the poor and who were searching for a
way to prevent colored races from reproducing. Rather than defending
the rights of the poorest of the poor, which is the tradition of
liberalism, the founders advocated abortion as a means of eliminating
the poor. And rather than desiring to help the poor through welfare
programs, they wanted to eliminate all charities and government aid.
SOME LIBERALS FLINCH IN THE FACE OF A
By MARK SHIELDS, Washington Post, August 12, 1994
. . . But
extend the belief in the dignity, equality and sanctity of human life to
include - as well as protection of the widow, the orphan and the
elderly lonely - the unborn child, and you court excommunication from
the American liberal fellowship.
It is altogether reasonable to question how we can call ourselves
"pro-life" if we do not care about the poor, the immigrant and those
suffering from AIDS.
Contradiction of Liberalism
WILLIAM J. HUSSAR , Washington Post, August 24,
advocates often make such claims as, "You can't force your own morality
on others." Yet in issues such as those concerning the poor, women and
minorities, liberals have never had a problem forcing their views on
others. Only when, as Mr. Shields says, "the agenda is one liberals
abhor" do liberals suddenly become libertarians.