According to UN Resolution 260, Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide can be defined as “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”
By this definition, abortion is indeed genocide. One could argue that the abortion of fetuses is indeed the most effective of genocides because it spans across all races, creeds and cultures in its assault upon the unborn.
We could throw definitions around all day. By my terms, abortion is genocide and by Ms. Johnson’s, abortion does not fall within the parameters. The point being, abortion as genocide is not a lie; it is an opinion, and we live in a country where any opinion, however inflammatory or controversial, has the right to be exercised.
I am sure the University of Kentucky displayed fairness in its judgment of allowing these opinions to be displayed on campus. No doubt pro-choice groups will be exercising their rights as well.
As a history student, I have no doubt Ms. Johnson is familiar with the unflattering history of the First Amendment. Very recently, in the Supreme Court Case Snyder v. Phelps, the court ruled in favor of the church that protests outside of military funerals. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.”
Free speech is free speech to all, including those we may not agree with and opinions we may not want to hear.
Luke Glaser
English sophomore
Well thanks then, Mr. Glaser, for “inflicting great pain” (your words) on our campus. I find it hard to believe that anyone who supports such an offensive display could possibly care about other people and the choices they make. Why anyone, after seeing your display, would think that this group could be supportive of a woman/couple making a difficult decision about their future is beyond me. I don’t have a strong opinion about your cause, but demonstrations like this one certainly do not encourage me to see, or even care to understand, your side of the argument.
Well thanks then, Mr. Glaser, for “inflicting great pain” (your words) on our campus. I find it hard to believe that anyone who supports such an offensive display could possibly care about other people and the choices they make. Why anyone, after seeing your display, would think that this group could be supportive of a woman/couple making a difficult decision about their future is beyond me. I don’t have a strong opinion about your cause, but demonstrations like this one certainly do not encourage me to see, or even care to understand, your side of the argument.
They have the right, yes. And we have the right to fight back. As for arguments and such, they had none. Their argument was pure pathos and encouragement of anger in the campus. It was anti-intellectual and hurtful to womankind. They have the right, just as those who value intelligent discourse have a responsibility to talk back. Ridicule is the only sufficient weapon against those committed to irrationality.
Luke Glaser, in his letter of April 12, claims that defining abortion as genocide is an opinion, and cites, out of context, and apparently without understanding, a line from United Nations resolution 260. In the interest of accuracy, I would like to refer to the entire text of the definition of genocide from the 1948 resolution (source: http://www.un.org):
Art. 2. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Clearly, to be genocide according the United Nations, and this is not opinion but simple fact, the acts must be “with intent to destroy…a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” Since in this country, abortions, whether one approves of them or not, are performed for women of all races, religions, ethnicities, and national origins, no group has been singled out as a group, as required by the definition, and, therefore, there is no genocide. As much as the letter writer and the group sponsoring the display would like to make it so, the United Nations definition cannot be construed to include abortion as currently practiced in the United States.