March/April, 1998 Volume XII Number 11

Eugenics, abortion and the Nazis plan

by Robert Jesolowitz
translation assistance: Ron Chandonia

Having studied the historical and ideological roots of National Socialism and the Nazi ideology for quite some time, I can't help but recognize the striking similarity between the way the Nazis rationalized many of their crimes and the way the pro-choicers do today.
If one really takes a closer look at what mentality contributed to the coming about of the Nazi movement, particularly its rationalization for "getting rid of" certain groups of people especially the handicapped and the mentally ill, one can't help but see the ideological similarity to the "new ethic" now used to justify abortion.
Materialism linked to eugenics, with a similar pseudo-scientific argumentation, was the justification for killing "low-human," "sub-human" and "not-yet-human" individuals. Hundreds of thousands, especially of mentally handicapped human beings, were murdered. This was euphemistically called "euthanasie."
The rationalization back then was somewhat like this: "Well, these miserable creatures (the mentally ill) do not have a real sense of what a quality life is all about: a life of full awareness that contributes to society, a life that brings joy and satisfaction through activities, a life in the true meaning of the word. Suffering in their miserable status, they are a burden for society. Therefore, it is not only justified but is an act of noble pity to end a life which was not a human life in the true quality sense of the word anyway."
When unborn children who are diagnosed as probably becoming handicapped get killed, when unborn children are not allowed to live anymore due to a negative "social prognosis" (however sociologically phony it may be), pro-abortionists come up with a eugenic agenda for our society as a "Brave New World," and we see lines of thinking, rationalization, and argumentation that I as a German know only too well.
Analogies in this case can and must be made if we are intellectually honest enough to confront the evils in contemporary society, a society which has adopted the same mentality that enslaved and murdered the innocent decades ago. The outside appearance might be different or vary here and there, but in their anti-human materialist reasoning, the pro-abortion mentality and the Nazi mentality are two fruits from the very same tree. Though the subject is complex, similarities are striking to those willing to open their eyes.
In light of the fact that millions of innocent unborn children are killed each year through the practice of abortion, analogies are often made between the Shoa or (Holocaust) and abortion.
While some are superficial and inappropriate, others are careful and valid. Yet all these comparisons are attacked by the pro-"choice" crowd. Many are quick to insist that such a comparison is nonsense since the National Socialists were against abortion or were "pro-life." This often-heard general statement, however, is not true. History shows us a very different picture.
In the 1920s German society saw a "liberalization" of abortion laws. Abortion was no longer seen as a crime and was reduced to an offense. This resulted in the numbers of abortions skyrocketing. This fact caused the materialist, collectivist racist Nazi movement great "concern." But the nature of that "concern" was fundamentally different from the motivation that drives a pro-lifer. The reaction of the Nazis to abortion betrays not only a different motive but a different way of thinking that bears no resemblance to the thinking of pro-lifers but is very like the thinking of those who advocate abortion today.
The concern of a true pro-lifer, what causes her or him to oppose abortion is the right to life of every human being. This very right is a personal one and a fundamental one upon which all other human rights--like the right to free speech and freedom of religion--are based. Without the right to life, the others become meaningless terms. No other person has a "right" to "choose" to take away these rights from another human being. Our right to choose what we do--or don't do--stops at the line where it endangers or destroys another human being's fundamental rights, the most basic being the right to life. No other person and no state is allowed to take that away from anybody.
It is true that when the Nazis came to power, they introduced stricter abortion laws. But this was not done because of pro-life motivations. Right to life was not viewed as a fundamental human right, nor was individual human life itself seen as having unique worth. Instead, ideological concerns made the Nazis worry about the skyrocketing abortion rate. A Nation, a Genetic Collective, the Race that was to be the ultimate force of a successful establishment of the Third Reich, were all of a sudden in danger. The Race would lose its vital strength when the "Selection of the Fittest" was no longer guaranteed, and the establishment of a strong new productive Race and State might be called into question because of a shortage of new offspring.
Thus, the new anti-abortion law was not based on a right to life that cannot be taken away. It saw abortion as an attack on the "volkskraft," the People's or the Nations strength. Far from being the product of a philosophy that cherishes the right to life, Nazi restrictions on abortion were based on a philosophy which degraded individual life by seeing it as merely the means to a "higher end." Of course, there was no personal right to life in this concept that used law as a tool to achieve ideological goals. When Nazi Germany expanded terror by occupying Eastern Europe, the rationale behind Nazi abortion laws was even clearer. At the instance of Himmler, the Nazis promoted contraceptives for women and introduced laws which made abortion legal in these occupied countries.
Of course, the philosophy which degraded life from being the most basic human right to merely a means to some other end was not new in principle. Lenin introduced abortion on demand in Soviet Russia. After a while, unrestricted abortion seemed damaging to Soviet interests, the government imposed stricter abortion laws which could then be "liberalized" when it suited their sociological goals.
Similarly, abortion advocates today reduce the right to life and give individual human life only an instrumental value. Whether the unborn child has a right to be born or not is often decided by selfish and egocentric rationalization similar to that used by the Nazi eugenicists. Of course many pro-"choicers" take an individualistic approach rather than a collectivist one. They may oppose abortion laws which are connected to some allegedly higher collectivist goal and insist that only the individuals immediately affected should have a "choice" whether or not to abort a child.
This individualism, however, is not different in quality but only in quantity from the promotion of abortion as a means to the greater good of the collective. In both cases, the life of the unborn child is seen as valuable only insofar as it serves the interests of others--whether it is the collectivist state or the individual parent. Similar self-centered rationalization reduces human life from a basic right to merely a tool to serve the convenience of others. In that sense, the philosophy of the Nazi collectivists of the past is very like the philosophy of individual abortion advocates in our own time.

Point to ponder: "...the misuse of the term "holocaust" for the extermination of the Chosen People could only come from one of the stalwarts of Hollywood illiteracy; in Greek mythology it stood for a sacrificial live cremation to win the favor of the gods."
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Flowers of evil
Eugenics, abortion and the Nazis plan
A new pharmacy ethic