Many Americans begin their defense of "choice" by denying that they are "pro-abortion." They assert that they are actually "personally opposed" to abortion but don’t believe they have the right to take that "choice" away from others. But most people who are reluctant to outlaw the "choice" of brutalizing an unborn baby, rightly support the outlawing of any "choice" to brutalize African Americans. Perhaps those who defend "choice" by advocating government "neutrality" on abortion should consider whether government "neutrality" on race, for instance, could ever possibly be "neutral." If the government suddenly withdrew legal protections for African Americans, would the government be "staying out of race" or would it be taking the side of those who think the lynching of African Americans should be a matter of "personal choice?" Such governmental "neutrality" would obviously abandon blacks to renewed genocide. Would a person be seizing the moral high ground by saying "I am personally opposed to lynching blacks, I just don’t think lynching blacks should be against the law?" Or try "I don’t advocate the lynching of blacks but I do advocate the right to lynch blacks."

"States’ Rights" advocates in fact once embraced the classic "pro-choice" position: They argued that if abolitionists didn’t like slavery, their remedy was to not buy blacks. They were infuriated at the idea that "n - - - - - lovers" might be permitted to shove their racial morality down the throats of property owners who were only trying to defend their constitutional rights. Whether the "choice" to victimize others is defined in terms of race, age, gender, or any other specious criterion, the concept of governmental "neutrality" on genocide is an intellectually dishonest myth. Those who reject the applicability of this argument with regard to abortion generally do so because they don’t believe unborn babies are "persons." But that is just what racists said about blacks.

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform publicly displays large photos comparing Jewish Holocaust victims, blacks killed in racist lynchings and aborted unborn babies to teach the conceptual similarity between abortion and more widely recognized forms of genocide. This is important because the word "abortion" has lost almost all of its meaning. Visual depictions of abortion are indispensable to the restoration of that meaning because abortion represents an evil so inexpressible that words fail us when we attempt to describe its horror. Abortion will continue to be trivialized until the American people understand the parallels between historical genocide and abortion genocide which is happening now -- contemporary genocide for which we ourselves are responsible.

We call this endeavor the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) because The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines "genocide" as "the systematic destruction of a national group." That definition readily applies to abortion. The "national group" is American unborn children and they are now being "destroyed" at the rate of nearly 1 out of every 3 conceived..

Killers can’t get much more "systematic" than that. Pol Pot’s murder of 1 out of every 4 Cambodians is invariably described as "genocide" despite the fact that the perpetrators shared the same ethnicity and nationality as their victims. Neither were they determined to kill every Cambodian in the world; only those who existence seemed subjectively inconvenient. And dictionary definitions of genocide have little to do with total numbers of victims. The recent killings of "only" 1 out every 20 Bosnians was widely described as "genocide" despite the fact that 1 out of 20 amounts to only a small fraction of the numbers of European Jews (3 out of every 4) slaughtered in the Holocaust. Six million Jews died in all but at least 36 million unborn children have been killed in this country just since 1973.