more comments...
« segfault wrote on Thursday, Apr 25 at 02:54 PM »
"of entire human groups" is the key phrase there. What group is being targeted? Even if there were a movement to pressure certain groups to have abortions, the problem would be the racist pressure, not the abortion itself. In other words, most people who have abortions are not trying to wipe out any groups. They simply cannot or do not want to support a baby at that time. You claim that all fetuses are huamans, but the point at which a fetus becomes completely human and gains human rights is debatable. Many if not most fertilized eggs don't make it until birth. Birth is also a bad marker because the baby has been viable outside the womb for quite a while. The answer is somewhere in between, but where? This is the core question of the abortion debate, and I'm not sure that there is an answer. I am pro choice by default because I don't consider it my place to impose my view of this philosophical question on others, but I think that more focus on sex education and birth control is more useful than bickering over a philosophical question. To answer your question, even if the pro-choice argument was correct, the incidences of abortion would be separate incidents of murder, not even mass murder and definitely not genocide. We're talking about many individual cases, not a top-down directive. That's why people are upset. The abortion debate is relevant to the event, but the offense comes from how lightly the campaign uses the word genocide on a day set aside for remembrance of actual genocide.
« FletcherArmstrongBlog wrote on Thursday, Apr 25 at 12:06 AM »
Responding to segfault, UN General Assembly Resolution 96 defines genocide in broader terms. Resolution 96, adopted in 1946, defines genocide as “a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups, as homicide is the denial of the right to live of individual human beings….” Resolution 96 goes on to say genocide is a crime “whether committed on religious, racial, political or any other grounds …” (Note the phrase, “any other grounds”.) Clearly, abortion denies millions of unwanted preborn children the right to live by systematically killing them. In 1948, the UN promulgated a more narrow definition for the purpose of prosecuting the crime in international court. The UN was forced by the Soviet Union to exclude mass murders of political and social groups from consideration, because they did not want to be hauled into court to defend Stalin’s genocidal acts. Hence, the more narrowly-written legal definition that included only national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups. Under the 1948 Convention, the killing of 1.7 million Cambodians by the Khmer Rouge would not be called genocide, because the victims were not selected based on nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion. Yet most everybody refers to this as an act of genocide. Of course, abortion is neither murder nor genocide if each preborn baby killed by abortion were something less than a living human being. But if each abortion kills a living human being — science tells us that the preborn child is both human and alive — then abortion kills 1.2 million human beings every year in America. If not genocide, what else would you call it?