Introduction
In his essay “Exploiting Nazism in Abortion Debate,” Colleen Connell argues that the recent Supreme Court ruling that abortion and family planning should be left to be decisions of an individual and not the state is a good step towards respecting human rights by giving women the freedom to decide what is good for their bodies. There were criticisms especially from those who equated the Nazi government with the Supreme Courts’ decision.
He argues that this criticism is an insult to the Americans who voted for and respected their constitution that values human rights. In addition, he claims that the perception of his critics is also an insult to the victims of the Nazi Holocaust. He attacks the comments in a famous magazine and claims that they distort the importance of history in transforming human beings and advancing democracy.
In addition, Connell presents that the critics were not keen when equating historical and current events since the Nazi government denied women their reproductive freedoms and forced many of them to have babies or abort without their consent. In fact, those who were considered outlaws were not allowed to have babies and were taken forceful sterilized. This means that their regime did not give women the freedom to choose what is good for them.
Therefore, he warns his critics against comparing the ruling to a historic event like the Nazi Holocaust since there are many differences between these two situations. He argues that Hitler believed that the laws that gave the state an enormous power over women and their health should be done away with since it violates their freedoms. In his argument, he presents that Hitler believed that the state should not interfere with the private life of an individual.
He demands that his critics should explain who should be responsible for individuals’ rights regarding reproductive health. However, he tells them that the Supreme Court’s ruling states clearly that people should enjoy their rights regarding the freedom to use contraceptives and abort whenever they feel these will make their lives better.
Lastly, he criticizes his critics by stating that they tried to resurrect historical injustices in an inappropriate manner for their own interests. He is confident that the constitution protects individuals’ rights against interference from the state or other people.
Analyzing the Argument
A good analysis of the above essay aims at establishing the relationship between the writer and the issue being debated. Connell is a legal expert, an activist for reproductive rights and active member of an organization that champions for the liberty and freedoms of individuals and unions. These positions dictate that he must take a bold step to serve his interests, and this becomes the basis of his argument.
However, several issues are responsible for his outburst regarding those who criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to give people exclusive reproductive rights. Even though, the decision did not appeal to many people he argues that this did not warrant them to equate the ruling to the Nazi Holocaust where millions of innocent civilians were butchered.
He argues that the decision to give people the right to plan their families and choose when to conceive or abort should not be interfered with by the state. Individuals know what is good for their health and life and should not be forced to do what they do not like.
Therefore, he claims that his critics are not interested in reforms but they want to achieve personal gains at the expense of lives lost during abortion and the trauma that people experience when the state imposes its regulations on their reproductive rights.
His argument confirms that even Hitler who was thought to be the cruelest leader during the Nazi uprising considered reproductive health to be the decision of an individual. He did not support any policy that dictated what people should do about their reproductive health and even proposed that the laws that existed at that time should have be done away with to give people exclusive rights over their lives.
However, Connell fails to realize that those who opposed the decision of the Supreme Court and equated it to the cruelty of the Nazi regime were very bitter about the holocaust and would never wish to hear anything that supports the ideas advanced by that regime.
Therefore, he weakens his debate by using Hitler’s ideas that the state should not interfere with an individual’s reproductive rights. He seems to forget quickly that most people will not see the relevance of the argument presented by Hitler regarding abortion and reproductive heath, but they will focus on the bad sides of his actions.
People are usually traumatized by bad memories and fail to realize the good things that happened during a gruesome period. For instance, a convicted criminal who serves six moths in jail or in a correctional facility will hardly remember the benefits derived from the activities and time they wasted in jail.
However, the person will vividly remember all the bad things that happened. This means human beings have a tendency to remember bad things than good ones and whether they are confronted with situations that have combinations of these two issues they will concentrate on the bad side of the event.
Moreover, his argument fails to identify the need for the state to intervene in helping individuals to get good medical services regarding reproductive health. The fact that the Supreme Court decided that the state should not interfere with the reproductive rights of individuals did not specify conditions that warrant this provision.
For instance, it leaves readers with many questions regarding the difference between the role of the state top protect human life and when it should not interfere with it. Abortion is a painful experience and no one will ever wish to do it for fun.
However, people are motivated by other personal interest and abort for conveniences. Some may have genuine reasons like health complications or they were raped and this makes abortion an option; however, majority of them will have weird reasons like career, education and sex preferences as grounds for abortion.
Therefore, Connell’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision is welcome should have elaborated more on the circumstances that should spell the conditions to allow individuals to abort. This means that his argument did not base any facts or considerations on morality but rather it focused on the legal and constitutional aspects of human rights and freedoms.
This is a subjective argument that leaves the audience with many questions that should be answered. Even though, Cornell may argue that he was responding to critics who equated the ruling to the holocaust this may not be a good ground to argue his point well.
In addition, the debate expresses that people must be given exclusive rights over their bodies but fails to present another similar provision in the constitution that gives individuals this exclusiveness. The state has a right to ensure people live peacefully and even though they have rights they must not use them to interfere with the rights of their friends, neighbors, community and the state.
This argument fails to realize the need to create boundaries and ensure that even though abortion and reproductive rights are not interfered with by the state there should be guidelines to moderate this behavior. Some people may take advantage of this provision and expose their lives to health risks and then blame the state for being irresponsible.
Conclusion
Connell has managed to argue and present his point to the audience in an elaborate way. The Nazi holocaust was an evil period that no one wants top remember, but people should not focus on the evils of an individual or state and forget their good sides. Even though, this period was marked by mass massacre there are some good points to take home. Hitler was a dictator, murderer and violated almost all human rights of the Nazis.
They were forced to flee their country and seek refuge ion neighboring region s. However, there were women who had been denied the right to have children among these people since they were forcefully sterilized. Hitler considered this an oppressive way of managing reproductive health, and he believed that the law should be scrapped immediately to give women the right to choose what is good for them regarding abortion and sterilization.