More hypocrisy on abortion from LaRouche's Club of Life

Note by DK: This is a translation of a portion of a report ("The Inviolability of Human Life") that LaRouche follower Jutta Dinkermann presented at the Jan. 2001 annual meeting of the so-called Club of Life in Wiesbaden, Germany. We present here the section entitled "The Error of Abortion" as published in Neue Solidaritaet, Number 5, 2001.[FN 1] On first thought, I was inclined to not be too judgmental re the hypocrisy of the European LC women who participated in this event, since at least one of them had defied LaRouche's abortion-or-else policy some years earlier and started a family, thus indirectly encouraging several others to do so. However, the LaRouche org as of 2001, with its Boomers mostly past the child-bearing age, was already pressuring newly-recruited LaRouche Youth Movement (LYM) members to undergo abortions. From this perspective, the European Boomers who participated in the Club of Life conference were helping to create a deceptive cover that would facilitate the cult's ongoing practice of forced abortion, with lasting emotional trauma for LYM women in both Europe and the United States. Yet the person I blame most for this state of affairs (besides LaRouche and his top aides) is Janet Reno, President Clinton's dippy Attorney General, who allowed LaRouche to get out of prison after only serving one-third of his sentence, thus enabling him to crack down on the trend within the cult to give birth to or adopt children that had developed during his incarceration. If this trend had not been halted through expulsions and ego-stripping sessions in the mid to late 1990s, the LaRouche movement might very well have disintegrated within a few years. So thanks, Janet. And thanks also to all those civil rights hustlers who were on the take in the early 1990s from LaRouche and Rev. Moon, and helped to bring about Der Abscheulicher's early release.

The Error of Abortion

It was never really a question of purported rights for women; rather, the point was to undermine the inviolability of human life--the Achilles heel of all humanistic cultures--by striking at this vulnerable point and pulling as many people as possible into the strike. Abortion wounded the Achilles heel by weakening the natural aversion to the taking of human life. Over time there must be consequences for a people's sense of right and wrong when no respect is given to human life at its very beginning. First, it was claimed that the growing new life inside the mother's body belonged to "me," the mother. Shortly thereafter we heard about "my death," which belonged to "me." And then one could even determine the death of others.

One must really understand what it means for a society when precisely the right to kill oneself or others is trumpeted as a triumph of self-determination, as the highest human right of all! This is a clear victory for our opponents. If you can induce members of a society to voluntarily kill themselves, their children, the elderly and the weak, then such a degree of moral aberration has been reached that society is open to any further influence.

It is vital to understand one thing: the fundamental principle that human life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg is not only scientifically accurate, it is also a prerequisite for all human morality and society.

I want to explain why this is. There are people who assert that one becomes a person only when one can feel pain. Therefore, the embryo is only human when it has a central nervous system. Others claim the embryo becomes human when it takes on a human form, i.e., the limbs develop. Still others see birth itself as the defining moment. But if by definition you are only human when you can feel pain, then an unconscious person is no longer human. If it is a question of limbs, are amputees two-thirds or one-half human? If birth is the defining point, is it really logical to say that you are not human immediately before your birth, but become so a few hours later?

Further, the idea that one attains the right to life and human dignity by the "actual practice of being human," also leads to error. For what does the "practice of being human" mean, and more importantly, who gets to decide? Bioethicists mean by this the capacity to reason, self-awareness, and the use of abstract language. By this definition, all those incapable of these things would not have an unconditional right to live, e.g., the unborn, newborns, small children, the demented and those in a coma.

I don't mention all this just to split hairs, but because we constantly encounter these arguments in our debates, e.g., in the Founding Charter of the European Union, which many consider to be the basis for a European Constitution. Hardly anyone appreciated the explosive nature of this document. We brought it to society's attention.

[1] You can read the full text of this deceptive document in German here. If you do read it, with all its professed concern for starving children, senior citizens, fetuses, etc., just consider that the leadership of the LaRouche cult, which totally controls the Club of Life, not only has coerced hundreds of women into having abortions over the past 35 years, but also (a) ripped off millions of dollars from seniors suffering from early-stage dementia in the 1980s (read here), (b) has continuously supported the murderous Sudanese regime (the butchers of Darfur) over the past decade (read here), and (c) helped in the mid-1990s to whip up the political rage among pro-government paramilitary groups in Chiapas, Mexico that ultimately resulted in the massacre at a village chapel in Acteal of 45 unarmed indigenous people, mostly women and children, along with four unborn children, one of whom was nearly full-term and was hacked from the mother's womb with a machete (read here). In other words, the Club of "Life" is best described--in spite of Jutta Dinkermann's delusional protestations--as a Club of Death.