Who said the following?  And do you agree with it?  (I took some words out to make it harder…)

“It is no answer to this argument to say that _____ is an evil, and hence should not be tolerated. You must allow the people to decide for themselves whether it is a good or an evil.”

Here, I’ll give you more of the speech:

“….On this question, also, I desire to say to you unequivocally, that I take direct and distinct issue with him. I have no warfare to make on the Supreme Court of the United States, either on account of that or any other decision which they have pronounced from that bench. The Constitution of the United States has provided that the powers of government (and the Constitution of each State has the same provision) shall be divided into three departments,—executive, legislative, and judicial. The right and the province of expounding the Constitution and constructing the law is vested in the judiciary established by the Constitution. As a lawyer, I feel at liberty to appear before the Court and controvert any principle of law while the question is pending before the tribunal; but when the decision is made, my private opinion, your opinion, all other opinions, must yield to the majesty of that authoritative adjudication. I wish you to bear in mind that this involves a great principle, upon which our rights, our liberty, and our property all depend. What security have you for your property, for your reputation, and for your personal rights, if the courts are not upheld, and their decisions respected when once fairly rendered by the highest tribunal known to the Constitution? I do not choose, therefore, to go into any argument with Mr. _____ in reviewing the various decisions which the Supreme Court has made, either upon the ______ case or any other. I have no idea of appealing from the decision of the Supreme Court upon a Constitutional question to the decisions of a tumultuous town meeting.”

I think many Americans would agree with the previous two quotes.  Whenever you try to raise the question of abortion, pro-choice politicians wave these two banners, right??  Either “you can’t legislate your personal morality” or “the Courts upheld a woman’s right to choose, and you can’t take that away from us.”

Well, what if I gave you a bit more of the same speech?

“Mr. Lincoln goes for a warfare upon the Supreme Court of the United States, because of their judicial decision in the Dred Scott case. I yield obedience to the decisions in that court,—to the final determination of the highest judicial tribunal known to our Constitution. He objects to the Dred Scott decision because it does not put the negro in the possession of the rights of citizenship on an equality with the white man. I am opposed to negro equality. I repeat that this nation is a white people,—a people composed of European descendants; a people that have established this government for themselves and their posterity,—and I am in favor of preserving not only the purity of the blood, but the purity of the government from any mixture or amalgamation with inferior races. I have seen the effects of this mixture of superior and inferior races,—this amalgamation of white men and Indians and negroes; we have seen it in Mexico, in Central America, in South America, and in all the Spanish-American States; and its result has been degeneration, demoralization, and degradation below the capacity for self-government.  I am opposed to taking any step that recognizes the negro man or the Indian as the equal of the white man. I am opposed to giving him a voice in the administration of the government.”

Changes things a bit, doesn’t it?  These quotes came from Stephen Douglas in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.  In the first quote, I took out “slavery” — just pop “abortion” in and see how many Americans nod in agreement.  In the longer quote, I took out Lincoln’s name and “Dred Scott.”  Replace them with any pro-life politician’s name and “Roe v Wade,” and once again, you’ll probably get nods out of Americans.

While I admire Douglas for some things, and even agree with him on some issues, I do not agree with him here.

Slavery and the horrible racist acts of American history were appalling crimes against humanity.

But the crimes do not stop there.  We must do everything in our power to end the infanticide of this country.

Side note: By the way, the definition of a “crime against humanity” is this: particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy … or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.”

Hmm….Abortion… Serious attack on human dignity?  Check.  Part of government policy?  Check. Widespread and systematic practice? Check.

Our Lady of America, pray for us.