Human Child (AP Photo)

What strikes me the most about the legalization of abortion and the current controversy surrounding the harvest and sale of body parts of the unborn is the resemblance that the entire question has with the proliferation of slavery prior to the Civil War.

Abortion has been legalized unconstitutionally in the Supreme Court just as Dred Scott was a win for slaveholders. Abortion has since moved from a fashionable thing to do, as it was in the seventies and early eighties – coincidentally with the rise of hard drug use and the so-called “sexual revolution” – to a means to keep down the populations of the poor, specifically black populations. And now, there is a question whether abortions could ultimately be sought by an agency who may be selling them on a part by part basis.

In a research paper from Carnegie Mellon University titled, “The Rearing of Slave Children and Their Parental Relationships Before and After Emancipation,” slave children were worth, “$100 at birth and $500 at the age of five,” and one slave woman who had a lot of strong children was worth more than another woman who had as many children, but who were sickly. In the third and fourth video from the Center for Medical Progress, Dr. Savita Ginde says that the “per item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” Ginde was referring to the dissected remains of aborted babies, who were also valued higher as their age progressed. In the third video, the remains of an 11.6-week-old baby, whose little fingers were distinct and looked as though they could grab your fingernail, was pleasing to the harvesters because the features were larger, easier to identify and part out. Therefore, as the child becomes older, he or she fetches a higher price.

In the decades leading up to the Civil War, John C. Calhoun, among others, held that slavery was a moral good. So too, do millions of women today, believe that not only is abortion a right, but that it would be an immoral thing to bring a child into the world that would complicate their lives, or for the child to enter a life of poverty. They never argue that the life ended during an abortion is sacred, or that the baby is in fact, a life. Interestingly, even in the cold, sterile confines of the laboratory where they dissected the child, it is referred to as, “another boy!” Another boy what? Another human life, another male human life.

In the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, Stephen Douglas argued for the expansion of slavery into the western states, and often called Lincoln a “Black Republican” beholden to the “nigger.” Douglas surmised that the black man was not a man but instead property. Lincoln argued that man cannot be property, as an ox or mule were, and that, “there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man.” In the current state of affairs, does it then hold that a child once growing in a woman’s womb is then her property, and she is given special consideration to terminate that life? Is the child not entitled to those same natural rights, the first of which is the Right to Life? Pro-lifers, like abolitionists, see a moral degradation of human life, most apparent in the videos. This gives credence to the claim that the abortion fanatics have created an industry around the massacre of the unborn and the use of human capital.

Just as slave-owners placed a higher value on female slaves, since they could work and produce more slave children so that the slaveholders did not have to purchase more, abortion fanatics protect abortion even in the face of the moral incompatibility of its practice. With the videos currently available, and the promise of more to come, shouldn’t we have a national debate about the immorality of an industry and practice that places monetary values on dead and dissected offspring, rather than the value of human life? Do we not value our loved ones, or value an intelligent mind in other ways than figuring out how much money that mind or that loved one can make us?

In the most horrifying times in history, literary war preceded or staved off physical war. In order to set minds for the proliferation of abortion, pro-aborts have decreed that a baby is not a baby until he or she leaves the hospital, or that the child in the womb is only tissue, an embryo, a glob, an insignificant parasite. With the release of the videos, one can see with their own eyes, and hear with their own ears, that abortion kills a child, and that the remains can be profitable as the child’s form progresses. That 11.6-week-old child, dismembered in the dish in the third video was forming his or her own unique set of fingerprints, which would have individually identified him or her, just as we all did, all 7 billion of us who have gratefully made it out of the womb. Those little hands, those tiny livers, those brains of limitless potential are wasted so a death industry can survive.

How can we as a nation survive with human rights intact when our government funds an industry whose business is death? How can we as enlightened people look away when our own children are used as commodities?

Jen Kuznicki is a wife and mother, seamstress by trade, and American patriot who says, "Now is the time to act."