William Brennan wrote about two articles that appeared in the New York Times on the same day, right next to each other. One was about an abortion case where a doctor killed a baby close to birth. The other was about the deaths of birds.
The contrast between the two of them shows how twisted society has become since Roe Vs. Wade:
“The ironclad tenacity of the press’s schizophrenic attitude toward destruction was flagrantly displayed in two editorials which appeared next to one another in the New York Times of February 19, 1975.
The first commentary, entitled “Abortion Error” expresses considerable dismay over the conviction of Dr. Kenneth C Edelin for manslaughter in the case of a late-term abortion [that witnesses say led the live birth of a baby who was then killed]. The decision of the jury is characterized as “a blow not only to physicians who perform legal abortions but also to the women who need these operations or may need then in the future.” The Times editorial cites “the historic Supreme Court verdict legalizing abortion” as a basis for predicting the reversal Dr. Edelin’s conviction, but still bemoans the fact that “the damage done to the cause of rational abortion may be much harder to undo than the conviction itself.”
(“Abortion Error” New York Times February 19, 1974, p 34)
Immediately following upon the heels of the preceding editorial is one with an entirely different slant entitled “Bird Massacre.” The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is taken to task for having “upheld the legality of killing millions of starlings, grackles, and red-winged blackbirds that roost near military installations in Kentucky and Tennessee.” Other culprits identified are the city of Paducah, Kentucky and the Army for initiating a policy of spraying the birds “with a detergent that removes protective oil from their feathers, causing them to die.” The writer does not hesitate to emphasize that “the poignant spectacle of millions of dead and dying birds ought to make Army and municipal officials reconsider this hideous project, particularly as they cannot achieve their objectives by this mass slaughter.” Plans generated for dealing with the birds are likened to “the kind of repeated bird massacres that exterminated the once common passenger pigeon”.…
(“Bird Massacre” The New York Times February 19, 1975, p34)
To the Times semanticists, the killing of unborn humans is simply a matter of “legal abortion,” “these operations,” “an action” or “rational abortion.” The killing of birds, on the other hand, is saturated with such concepts as “bird massacres,” “killing,” “the slaughter,” “dead and dying birds,” “hideous project,” “mass slaughter,” and “exterminated.”
The words used to describe the deaths of birds contrast starkly with the words used to describe abortions.
William Brennan The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution (St. Louis, Missouri, 1983) 157
Which is worse? The deaths of babies (like these) or the deaths of birds?
Share on Facebook
