A reader writes:
Kain makes the mistake of thinking that any moral belief deeply held, no matter how extreme, can't be criticized for being too extreme. It's a moral belief, after all!
But imagine a militant animal rights activist who claimed, "The meat industry is indisputably the worst Holocaust in history." If we buy into Kain's argument, there's nothing ridiculous here. If you believe in your heart of hearts that an animal is a sentient being worthy of equal moral weight to a human being, and yet the law of the land dictates that said being is not in possession of even the most basic right the right to life then really how different is the meat industry from the Holocaust?
The only difference that I can see is that it's those damn hippies who would make one argument, while respectable and upstanding members of the community would make the other.
The photo is from a PETA "die-in". Another writes:
Two can play that game: If you believe in your heart of hearts that a woman is nevertheless a person - a live, autonomous human being - and yet the law of the land dictates that said live, autonomous being is not in possession of even the most basic right - the right to control what happens to her body - then how different is this from slavery? It's all about control; does the government get to decide what I do with my body, or do I?
In the US, murder of a slave was still murder. They had a right to life. The enforcement may have been lax (or nonexistent), but it was illegal. So I say the Malkin award stands. Abortion = Slavery is a ridiculous analogy. Abortion foes have legitimate morals to raise, why raise specious ones?