Abortolition, Abortion Abolition

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print



Abolition: noun, the act of abolishing; the state of being abolished;  abrogation:  the abolition of unjust laws; the abolition of unfair taxes; the legal prohibition and ending of slavery, especially of slavery of blacks in the U.S.


Abortolition: noun, the act of abolishing abortion; the state of abortion being abolished;   the abolition of  laws permitting abortion;  the legal prohibition and ending of abortion, especially of raced-based eugenically-targeted abortions of minority babies such as black babies and hispanic babies in the U.S.


“Abortolition” – sounds like a weird, contrived word; but the point in the contriving it is this:  the  identical immoral justification for slavery and all it entailed – lynching, torture, sale of (bodily intact entire) human beings deemed “subhuman,” –  is the same as the immoral justification today for abortion and all it entails – torturous, painful death of innocent “subhuman” babies and sale of them, in part or in toto, for profit. So far there have been no known public auctions of unborn children, or of parts of them. “Abortolition” also conveys the racist aspects and eugenic agenda  of organized abortion in the world today.


Any loyal democrat or prodeath member of some other party immediately recoils from and rejects any comparison of slavery to abortion – and they must do so to maintain an artificial  patina of morality and to remain on any supposed moral high ground they have defined for themselves and occupied,  while trumpeting some alleged “right” created by seven men, a “right” which is not in the U.S. Constitution.


Righteous with dismissive elitist bluster, interspersed with references to “science” and “freedom” and “law of the land,”  such denials of the analogy of abortion to slavery fume and foam with wordss like


“Slaves were human beings, -[ even if the pre-civil-war democrats denied this] – but “science tells us democrats today a foetus, or an embryo, or whatever is inside a woman, or girl, is a cell mass. Those brain waves and heartbeats are just vegetative, autonomic responses.”


Never mind that the Roe decision in 1973 legalized abortion up to the moment before natural childbirth. (Yes, truth).


Any study of the facts reveals that, indeed, the comparison of slavery to abortion is spot on. But the comparison does fail when numbers alone are considered –   the  number of slaves (and of slave lynchings) turns out to be, by comparison, relatively small (by some estimates about 5000 lynchings in all US history) compared to the astronomical number of abortions since the Roe legislative/judicial decision.  Minority abortions alone since Roe are estimated at about 30,000,000, (half the estimated 60,000,000 dead) which includes 20,000,000 black babies and 10,000,000 hispanic babies – their mamas being less than a quarter of the entire population. Even if a huge “plus or minus” is stated with these statistics, not even a democrat, totalitarian or democrat-supporting priest would have the chutzpah to say, e.g.,  “Oh, that is inflated, only about 7,000,000 minority babies have been killed.” (which would be merely a million more than the 6,000,000 Jewish holocaust dead).


Here’s how Jesse Jackson stated the analogy in 1977, before he changed his mind:


“ . . .one accepts the position that life is private, and therefore you have the right to do with it as you please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic. That was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.” (Jesse Jackson in a National Right To Life Committee newsletter).


Norma McCorvey, the original plaintiff in the Roe case, later in life changed from her prodeath view and professed a prolife ideology.  In preparation for hearings of the  Senate Judiciary Committee in 2005 on the legacy of Roe,  she submitted a paper summarizing the comparison of abortion to slavery. “When slavery was constitutional,” she said, “we treated one class of humans as property. We are treating the humans in the mother’s womb as property and less than human when we say it is OK to kill them.”


The analogy of slavery to abortion is as undeniable as is the comparison of the infamous Dred Scott Supreme Court  decision of 1857 to the horrorific Roe. V. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973.  The reasoning of Roe’s seven-man majority is a fraud, and with recent disclosures clearly an intentional fraud,  when examined under acceptable legal principles and correct constitutional jurisprudence.  Even proabortion constitutional scholars have condemned the Court’s legal legerdemain, obfuscation, and outright errors.


Professor of Law Lynn Wardle said:


“Roe v. Wade is the 20th Century equivalent of Dred Scott v. Sanford – the infamous decision holding that slaves and their descendants were not and could not be “citizens” of any American state for purposes of the Constitution.  Conceptually, the Roe abortion rule is like slavery; it de-humanizes and treats as chattel a whole class of humanity. As Dred Scott held that Blacks not persons entitled to constitutional protection, so Roe holds that unborn humans are not entitled to basic constitutional protection for their lives.  As the Court in Dred Scott said that Black slaves are merely the property of their owners, so Roe said that an unborn human being is merely property belonging to her pregnant mother – which the woman can dispose of as she wishes.   If, as Abraham Lincoln said at Coopers Union, the message of slavery is that a man is not a man if he is Black, the core message of Roe is that a human being is not a human being if she is in utero.”


Even liberal Professor Tribe of Harvard Law admits the truth of the analogy of slavery to abortion:


“Pro-lifers often argue that the social and linguistic dehumanization of enslaved human beings in nineteenth-century America is eerily similar to the dehumanization of human beings in the womb today. In Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes, liberal legal heavyweight and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe conceded this possible moral connection between the two issues. Noting one feminist legal theorist’s contention that “fetal life has value when people with power value it,” Tribe responded that “the same thing was once said of slaves: the value of black Americans was less than the value of white Americans in the view of people with power.” Although Tribe is pro-choice, he at least acknowledges that the comparison between abortion and slavery on the level of basic morality is not groundless.” (at site Public Discourse, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/12/11683/).


When the initial cases were filed for the Scott family,  in the mid nineteenth century, the woman slave was pregnant. Her owners owned her unborn child. By the time the Supreme Court ruled in 1857, the ruling applied to Dred Scott, his wife Harriet Robinson Scott, and to their two little girls, Eliza and Lizzie,  – all of whom were declared to be the property of their owner, in an opinion written by a catholic chief justice from a former slave-owning family, an opinion praised and applauded by democrats as correct and right in line with the Constitution.


So, back to “abortolition.”


Democrats and their client catholic clergy who wish to deliver the catholic vote to the Party Of Death will condemn the use of this word – abortolition – as not only silly, but as nondialogic and way too “in your face.” The more compassionate and sensitive elitists will add that many women and girls will be offended when they hear it.


They would also:


  • Tell Emmit Tyll’s Mama to close her lynched son’s coffin for his funeral because the sight of his torn and tortured body was offensive
  • Tell Ike Eisnehauer he was mistaken in ordering all those photos taken at the end of WW II in the Nazi death camps showing the demonic atrocities inflicted on the subhuman Jews (yes, same reasoning applied today by these same sensitive folks in trying to stop the publicity of photos showing what actually happens in a sucking-dismemberment or saline-burning abortion of a subhuman cell mass)
  • Tell William Wilberforce it was beyond offense for him to take good English citizens down into the hull of a slave ship, once any dead “cargo” had been removed, those “properties” who were not delivered intact,  to smell the feces, vomit, and urine of the subhuman Africans accumulated over the weeks of passage


So, “abortolition.”


If you don’t feel like using this silly, contrived word – abortolition – then say that the analogy between slavery and abortion is absolutely correct; that the immoral basis – lying that some human beings are subhuman –  for the two is the same; and that the democrats’ RETA policy today – racial eugenic targeted abortion – is simply another chorus of their elitist hymn.


Speak truth to dark power; speak truth to democrats of the Party of Death; and speak truth to their client catholic clergy who spew “not single issue voters” and “life is a seamless garment.” Tell them it is a mortal sin for a catholic with a well-formed conscience to vote for any democrat.


Tell them you want the same justice today for every unborn child as was finally accorded to the unborn child growing in Harriett Robinson Scott’s warm womb in 1847. For in May 1857 that little girl was freed and lived out a long life with her freed Mama and with her new free sister.

More to explorer

Thought For the Day


I am truly surprised by this:   The Arizona Democratic Party is planning to hold a vote this week to determine whether

Saint of the Day Quote: Saint Joseph of Cupertino

  I like not scruples nor melancholy: let your intention be right and fear not. Saint Joseph of Cupertino     There


  1. Those brain waves and heartbeats are just vegetative, autonomic responses.

    You mean like Democrats? (Man, I miss Bob Hope).

  2. I have always been me, since the moment of conception. That is true whether anyone valued my life, or not. This post drives home the point I always raise, the arguments for slavery are exactly the same as the arguments for abortion. The pro-life movement needs to link these two issues and never let up. Thank you Guy!

  3. We shouldn’t be shocked if the left looses what little sanity it has when the federal government overturns R v. W. The likelihood of madmen and women joining the ranks of Antifa is a safe assumption. An ugly Soros backed contingent hell bent on Anarchy could spark future riots and Abortion will be the powder keg.

    Civil war? God help us if it ever came to that.
    Slavery and abortion. My guess is that the aborted wished they at least had a chance at life..even if they we’re slaves. Many slaves might have wished that they had never been born.

  4. Thank you, Guy. …”it is a mortal sin for a catholic with a well-formed conscience to vote for any democrat.” or any pro-choice or kick-the-can Republican.

  5. science tells us democrats today a foetus, or an embryo, or whatever is inside a woman, or girl, is a cell mass. Those brain waves and heartbeats are just vegetative, autonomic responses.

    In as much as this line is correct, it applies equally to the girl or woman.

    Any complex living organism is a cell-mass, and even beating-heart organ donation requires that those basic, automatic reflexes be absent before you can cut out the organs. (Folks following that protocol are involved in a lot of the “they almost harvested the guy’s heart” type stories.

    Biologically speaking, the pro-life side has all the cards. It requires defining some living humans (Worse, healthy humans! There’s more justification for killing the ill and disabled, biologically speaking–note that killing the unsympathetic among the disabled tends to go hand in hand with abortion.) as non-persons to justify abortion.

Comments are closed.