In today’s culture, being pro-choice, synonymous with pro-abortion, is the widely accepted norm. Media outlets laud the supposed progress that society has made when it comes to women’s reproductive rights. However, one must wonder if this is true progress or if society is repeating gruesome mistakes of the past. The common arguments given for abortion are disturbingly similar to the arguments for both Hitler’s Holocaust and American slavery.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler argued that the Jews were of a lower species because they were “less intelligent,” “did not have a state of their own,” “created financial and economical burden,” and “made no cultural contribution.”[1] These, I argue, have direct similarities to the pro-abortion arguments. Joyce Arthur, founder and executive director of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, writes,

“a fetus doesn’t just depend on a woman’s body for survival, it actually resides in her body. Humans must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being– the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.”[2]

Hitler made frighteningly similar arguments against the Jews. He argued that they were lesser persons, if a person at all, because of their perceived parasitic status in the German nation. He writes,

“The Jews live as a parasite in the body of other nations . . . . Since the Jew– for reasons which will all at once become apparent– was never in possession of a culture of his own, the foundations of his intellectual work were always provided by others. His intellect at all times developed through the cultural world surrounding him. The reverse process never took place . . . .

No, the Jew possess no culture-creating force of any sort since the idealism, without which there is no true higher development of man, is not present in him and never was present . . . not through him does any progress of mankind occur, but in spite of it.”[3]

In the International Planned Parenthood Federation Guidelines– hereafter referred to as IPPF Guidelines –the reasons given for most abortions are “to preserve the physical or mental health of the woman,” “pregnancy after rape or incest,” “foetal impairment,” “economic” and “social grounds,” and “on request.”[4] Pro-choice intellectuals have long said that even if an unborn child is a “life,” it is not yet a “person.” During the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying, “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”[5] The IPPF’s guidelines on how to talk about abortion state that, “abort a child” is medically inaccurate, as the fetus is not yet a child.[6] Pro-choice intellectuals also discourage the use of the words, “baby,” “dead fetus,” “unborn baby,” and “unborn child,” again asserting that the fetus is not a baby.[7] It appears these arguments are made in the same vein as the arguments Hitler used for the extermination of Jews. He considered the Jewish people as lesser persons because they were “less intelligent,” and “made no contribution to society.” Much like the pro-abortion argument that the fetus is a part of the woman’s body and is not viable on its own, Hitler argued that the Jews had no viable state of their own and were, instead, a parasite in the body of the German state.

Hitler also argued for the economical drain that the Jews were on Europe. Similarly, pro-abortion activists often claim that more unplanned pregnancies will lead to more economical drain on both the individual and the state. These same activists say that single mothers are often less likely to continue higher education and seek better paying jobs. While this may be true, it does not change the fact that this is dangerously similar to the arguments Hitler made in regard to the Jews when he wrote that the Jew “destroys more and more thoroughly the foundations of any economy that will really benefit the people.”[8]

Perhaps even more similar are the arguments made for American slavery. lists the justifications given by slaveholders for slavery as:

  1. Ending slavery would hurt the economy
  2. It would cause widespread unemployment
  3. It has occurred throughout history and is the natural state of mankind
  4. Turned to the Courts decisions (i.e. The Dred Scott Decision)
  5. It was better for the Negro Slave [9]

The first two reasons have been discussed above in relation to Hitler’s persecution of the Jews. I will continue with the third reason listed.

It is true that abortion has occurred throughout history from ancient to modern times. There are even writings that have been found that instruct on different methods of how to have an abortion. One may argue that this makes abortion just as right and natural as any other human medical activity. However, aside from the fact that ancient medical practices have all but been thrown out in favor of modern medicine (i.e., leeching and bleeding), the fact that abortion has been around for centuries does not make it right. Slaveholders argued that slavery had been around for centuries and was the natural state of mankind. Of course, modern society would vehemently disagree, and rightly so. Just because something has been practiced for centuries does not make it right. Hitler, also, claimed that the Jews had never had their own state and had always been a lesser species than the Aryans. To Hitler and his supporters, this made the Holocaust acceptable. Man has always murdered, lied, stolen, raped, cheated, and prejudiced. This fact does not make man’s actions acceptable.

Those in favor of slavery also turned to the court’s previous decisions to justify their beliefs. Many Southerners turned to the Dred Scott decision, formerly known as Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sanford. This case not only ruled that slaves were not entitled to their freedom even if they had resided in a free state, but also that African American’s could never be citizens of the United States. Chief Justice Rodger Brooke Taney, who presided over the case, argued that the framers of the constitution “did not regard African Americans as being ‘among the people’ for whose benefit and protection the new government was founded.”[10] Historians write that Taney’s decision was “arguably the worst he ever wrote. . . .He is remembered now almost solely for the blatantly pro-slavery decision he wrote and for his demeaning comments about African Americans.”[11] This, too, finds its parallel in the argument for abortion. Roe v. Wade is the supreme court decision that ruled undue state regulation of abortion unconstitutional and paved the way for widespread abortions to occur throughout the United States. While those who are in favor of abortion point to this ruling as justification for abortion, the Dred Scott decision proves the fact that just because the court says something is lawful, it does not always make the decision moral. Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, interestingly enough, became a Christian after the historical decision and spent the rest of her life “as an opponent of the movement she once symbolized.”[12]Pointing to the courts alone is not sufficient evidence to justify abortion. Curiously, those who use this argument from the courts as justification for abortion, often turn against the same courts on matters they disagree on. Whether it be gun control, taxes, or foreign policy, many do not seem to hesitate to call out the court’s wrongdoings and, in doing so, they admit that the courts are not infallible.

A final argument pro-abortionists use– though there are many others– parallels to the pro-slavery argument that it was better for the Negro to remain in slavery than to be freed. Modern culture would be abashed at such a statement, and rightfully so. Unfortunately, many would make the same argument to justify abortion. Those in favor of abortion would say it is better for a child not to be born at all than to be born into a situation where they are not able to be properly taken care of. This point is very weak since there are many opportunities available to the mother such as adoption, crises pregnancy centers, churches, and other charitable organizations. However, this is not the point I wish to focus on. Slave holders argued that if Negros were freed, they would not have the same care and protection their masters provided. Often, slave holders pointed to the poor living conditions of the indigent people in Europe and the North as proof.[13] Modern society today looks at this and sees the foolishness of it. In any condition, all people want to be free. If this right to freedom for the African American is true, how much more so the right to life itself? It is not justifiable to end the life of a child simply because their situation is not deemed suitable. If this were the case it would not be far of a logical jump for one to argue for the killings of all the poor in third world counties. When we start deciding whose lives are worth living and whose lives are not, we have already started down and incredibly dangerous and slippery slope.

One can continue to argue for abortion and even continue to justify it to themselves and others; however, they must do so with the understanding they are using the same logic and arguments that two of the greatest evils of modern history have used. The frameworks of these arguments are too similar to ignore. The United States has the blood of millions on its hands and it will answer for it. The life of a human being, at whatever stage it is in, has intrinsic value. Value that must be acknowledged and protected. The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”[14] The rights and life of all people must be protected no matter their age, race, or gender. All humankind is created in the image of God, and as His image bearers, each human life has unique and inherent dignity– and that is not to be treated lightly.


[1] Hitler, Adolf. “Mein Kampf: Nation and Race.” Mein Kampf: Nation and Race,

[2] “Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?” THE PRO-CHOICE ACTION NETWORK, Aug. 2001,

[3] Hitler, Adolf. “Mein Kampf: Nation and Race.” Mein Kampf: Nation and Race,

[4] Terki, Fatiha, and Usha Malhotra. “Medical and Service Delivery Guidelines.” Edited by Mark Powlson, IPPF, 27 June 2016,

[5] Richardson, Bradford. “Hillary Clinton’s ‘Unborn Person’ Comments Anger Both pro-Choice, pro-Life Sides.” The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 3 Apr. 2016,

[6] Terki, Fatiha, and Usha Malhotra. “Medical and Service Delivery Guidelines.” Edited by Mark Powlson, IPPF, 27 June 2016,

[7] ibd.

[8] Hitler, Adolf. “Mein Kampf: Nation and Race.” Mein Kampf: Nation and Race,

[9] “The Southern Argument for Slavery.”, Independence Hall Association,

[10] Urofsky, Melvin I. “Dred Scott Decision.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 10 Sept. 2018,

[11] ibd.

[12] Richardson, Bradford. “Hillary Clinton’s ‘Unborn Person’ Comments Anger Both pro-Choice, pro-Life Sides.” The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 3 Apr. 2016, &nbsp

[13] “The Southern Argument for Slavery.”, Independence Hall Association,

[14] “The Declaration of Independence: Full Text.”, Independence Hall Association,

This article is reprinted with permission from the author. The original story was published here on July 16, 2019.

Website | + posts

Katherine is passionate about protecting the dignity of the preborn and empowering women to make life affirming choices.

The views and opinions expressed in these articles are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Human Defense Initiative.