Well, really, its far more than a phrase – its a rather long quote. But given that we are about to have a debate over Sotomayor and this, in turn, is bound to bring up Roe and the overall Life issue, it is worthwhile to step back in time when the issue wasn’t whether or not we should rip unborn babies to pieces, but whether or not we should use methods to prevent pregnancy:
…I despise Birth-Control because it is a weak and wobbly and cowardly thing. It is not even a step along the muddy road they call Eugenics; it is a flat refusal to take the first and most obvious step along the road of Eugenics. Once grant that their philosophy is right, and their course of action is obvious; and they dare not take it; they dare not even declare it. If there is no authority in things which Christendom has called moral, because their origins were mystical, then they are clearly free to ignore all the difference between animals and men; and treat men as we treat animals. They need not palter with the stale and timid compromise and convention called Birth-Control. Nobody applies it to the cat. The obvious course for Eugenists is to act towards babies as they act towards kittens. Let all the babies be born; and then let us drown those we do not like. I cannot see any objection to it; except the moral or mystical sort of objection that we advance against Birth-Prevention. And that would be real and even reasonable Eugenics; for we could then select the best, or at least the healthiest, and sacrifice what are called the unfit. By the weak compromise of Birth-Prevention, we are very probably sacrificing the fit and only producing the unfit. The births we prevent may be the births of the best and most beautiful children; those we allow, the weakest or worst. Indeed, it is probable; for the habit discourages the early parentage of young and vigorous people; and lets them put off the experience to later years, mostly from mercenary motives. Until I see a real pioneer and progressive leader coming out with a good, bold, scientific programme for drowning babies, I will not join the movement. – G K Chesterton
Chesterton was, of course, being tongue in cheek at the last, but the truth he wrote all those years ago about so-called birth-control applies to the issue of abortion – or, of course, “choice”, as our cowardly progressives of 2009 term it. Just as back then, so today: if there is no divine law against killing unborn children – and there must not be, if we are to do it – then the entire concept of inherent human dignity and rights goes right out the window…and why, then, should we allow any but the most physically and mentally fit to breed? As Chesterton asked, are we not likely allowing our best human specimens to eschew breeding and leaving the creation of the next generation to the weakest among us?
Human life is either inherently valuable and endowed by God with certain, unalienable rights, or it’s not. If you hold to the view that elective abortion is licit, then you are holding to the view – even if you don’t want to admit it – that there is no such thing as a human right…merely human privileges, revocable by the group at will.
Blogs For Victory 