Hitler Slavery and Abortion

[Yakuda]

I like how accurate the comparisons of pro choicers are to Nazi and slave owners.

 

[Yakuda]

I like how accurate the comparisons of pro choicers are to Nazi and slave owners.

I guess the pro choice crowd agree with him

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Hitler dehumanized Jews. Called them Parasites. Who doesn't want to kill parasites?

 

[Eightcrackers]

Hitler dehumanized Jews. Called them Parasites. Who doesn't want to kill parasites?

This relates to abortion, how?

 

[Yakuda]

This relates to abortion, how?

Watch the video Einstein

 

[Nedsk]

I like how accurate the comparisons of pro choicers are to Nazi and slave owners.

It seems obvious to me that pro choicers have followed the same formula as Nazis and slavery proponents and have decided that certain attributes must necessarily be present in a person in order for them to be afforded rights. There seems to be a grave danger in one group of.humans deciding whether or not another group of humans should have access to their rights. It seem to be such a situation is rife for abuse

 

[romishpopishorganist]

This relates to abortion, how?

Seriously dude? You seriously cannot see the parallels?

Most abortion supporters justify the evil of abortion the exact same way slave owners justified slavery, and the exact same way Hitler justified the Holocaust: by denying the personhood of the persons. Slavery was justified--becasue black people aren't human. The Holocaust is justified because Jewish people aren't human.

You see, sir, when you apply the logic most abortion supporters use to justify abortion to those who are born, you find you can easily justify any atrocity you want against any race of people you want.

Now you, sir, seem to be in a minority--justifying abortion based on the fact that the unborn child has no right to be in the women's womb, unless said women grants consent. And as you know----if the woman did not want a child in her womb, she should not have participated in making the child in the first place. No woman who does not want to get pregnant has to get pregnant. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, the solution is simple: do not engage in the act that creates a pregnancy--or--take steps to ensure that if you do participate in the act that creates a pregnancy--a pregnancy will not result.

Abortion as a solution to pregnancy should simply not be necessary. This, especially since pregnancy itself is not the problem. This is the other problem with abortion supporters: they think when a woman is pregnant--and the woman does not want to be pregnant----that the pregnancy is the problem.

 

[Nedsk]

Seriously dude? You seriously cannot see the parallels?

Most abortion supporters justify the evil of abortion the exact same way slave owners justified slavery, and the exact same way Hitler justified the Holocaust: by denying the personhood of the persons. Slavery was justified--becasue black people aren't human. The Holocaust is justified because Jewish people aren't human.

You see, sir, when you apply the logic most abortion supporters use to justify abortion to those who are born, you find you can easily justify any atrocity you want against any race of people you want.

Now you, sir, seem to be in a minority--justifying abortion based on the fact that the unborn child has no right to be in the women's womb, unless said women grants consent. And as you know----if the woman did not want a child in her womb, she should not have participated in making the child in the first place. No woman who does not want to get pregnant has to get pregnant. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, the solution is simple: do not engage in the act that creates a pregnancy--or--take steps to ensure that if you do participate in the act that creates a pregnancy--a pregnancy will not result.

Abortion as a solution to pregnancy should simply not be necessary. This, especially since pregnancy itself is not the problem. This is the other problem with abortion supporters: they think when a woman is pregnant--and the woman does not want to be pregnant----that the pregnancy is the problem.

That seems to be the point of the video that those who are pro choice deny the personhood of the fetus. They sometimes admit the fetus is human but not a person because the fetus doesn't experience pain or has consciousness etc so therefore it can be eliminated. Thank you for your post.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Most abortion supporters justify the evil of abortion the exact same way slave owners justified slavery, and the exact same way Hitler justified the Holocaust: by denying the personhood of the persons.

I don't.
Whether or not the unborn is a person (and US law says it's not a US citizen), it does not - and should not - have the right to live inside another person without the latter's permission.

You see, sir, when you apply the logic most abortion supporters use to justify abortion to those who are born, you find you can easily justify any atrocity you want against any race of people you want.

That's called a slippery slope fallacy - "if not abortion, why not anti-Semitic genocide?"

I'll tell you why: my position on abortion applies only - only - to the unborn, and I will never apply it to the born.

Unless we end up in some bizarre future where consciousness can body-hop, and removing an invading consciousness would result in its death.
(And you can bet I will support the right to such removals, should it ever happen.)

Now you, sir, seem to be in a minority--justifying abortion based on the fact that the unborn child has no right to be in the women's womb, unless said women grants consent.

So? Being in a minority doesn't make me wrong.

And as you know----if the woman did not want a child in her womb, she should not have participated in making the child in the first place.

I agree 100%.

That doesn't solve the problem that is her unwanted pregnancy.
Abortion does.

No woman who does not want to get pregnant has to get pregnant.

Unless she's raped, but other than that, I agree again.
I would much prefer that unwanted pregnancies never happen in the first place.

But they do, and such women need to be able to do something about it.

If a woman does not want to be pregnant, the solution is simple: do not engage in the act that creates a pregnancy--or--take steps to ensure that if you do participate in the act that creates a pregnancy--a pregnancy will not result.

You couch it as "... if the woman does not want to get pregnant..."
I address ".. if the woman does not want to be pregnant..."

Abortion as a solution to pregnancy should simply not be necessary.

Well, if we're living in fantasy land, where all people can resist unprotected sex at all times, sure.

But here, in this world, some pregnant woman think that it is necessary.

This, especially since pregnancy itself is not the problem.

You don't get to say that to a pregnant woman that considers her pregnancy to be a problem.

 

[Temujin]

Seriously dude? You seriously cannot see the parallels?

Most abortion supporters justify the evil of abortion the exact same way slave owners justified slavery, and the exact same way Hitler justified the Holocaust: by denying the personhood of the persons. Slavery was justified--becasue black people aren't human. The Holocaust is justified because Jewish people aren't human.

You see, sir, when you apply the logic most abortion supporters use to justify abortion to those who are born, you find you can easily justify any atrocity you want against any race of people you want.

Now you, sir, seem to be in a minority--justifying abortion based on the fact that the unborn child has no right to be in the women's womb, unless said women grants consent. And as you know----if the woman did not want a child in her womb, she should not have participated in making the child in the first place. No woman who does not want to get pregnant has to get pregnant. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, the solution is simple: do not engage in the act that creates a pregnancy--or--take steps to ensure that if you do participate in the act that creates a pregnancy--a pregnancy will not result.

Abortion as a solution to pregnancy should simply not be necessary. This, especially since pregnancy itself is not the problem. This is the other problem with abortion supporters: they think when a woman is pregnant--and the woman does not want to be pregnant----that the pregnancy is the problem.

This is seriously warped logic. Imprisonment of criminals is justified. Imprisonment of non-criminals is not justified. If non-criminals are denounced as criminals, and then imprisoned, that doesn't make imprisonment wrong in all cases. If someone is killed because they are a non-person, when they are in fact a person, then most people would agree that this is wrong. That does not affect the killing of a non-person who is in fact a non-person. The misuse of personhood by the Nazis or by slave owners is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the unborn foetus actually is a person. If so, you have a case. All you need to do is show it to be true instead of just claiming it. Good luck.

 

[Nedsk]

This is seriously warped logic. Imprisonment of criminals is justified. Imprisonment of non-criminals is not justified. If non-criminals are denounced as criminals, and then imprisoned, that doesn't make imprisonment wrong in all cases. If someone is killed because they are a non-person, when they are in fact a person, then most people would agree that this is wrong. That does not affect the killing of a non-person who is in fact a non-person. The misuse of personhood by the Nazis or by slave owners is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the unborn foetus actually is a person. If so, you have a case. All you need to do is show it to be true instead of just claiming it. Good luck.

This is most telling

"The misuse of personhood by the Nazis or by slave owners is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the unborn foetus actually is a person"

Hitler and slave owners might have said the very same thing. The reasoning is precisely the same. When you can arbitrarily determine when or if someone is an "person" you run into problem. The evidence for that is clear it's just that babies have no voice.

 

[Temujin]

This is most telling

"The misuse of personhood by the Nazis or by slave owners is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the unborn foetus actually is a person"

Hitler and slave owners might have said the very same thing. The reasoning is precisely the same. When you can arbitrarily determine when or if someone is an "person" you run into problem. The evidence for that is clear it's just that babies have no voice.

They might well have said the same thing. History proved them wrong. So far history has proved those who deny that the foetus is a person to be right. I cannot think of a single society where the foetus has been regarded as a person. Individuals and fringe groups may do do. You may even do so, but society as represented by its political and legislative leaders has never acknowledged the foetus as a person. Frankly, I don't think that they ever will, since doing so would make a mockery of the term.

To make abortion equivalent to slavery or the Holocaust you must show that the foetus is equivalent to the slave or the jew. That is, you must show that it is a person. It is not treated as a person, sure. But there is a simple reason for that which has not been addressed or even attempted.

Show that the foetus is a person. Legally, morally, politically, biologically, financially, anyway you like. Define a person then show that the foetus fits that description.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

This is seriously warped logic. Imprisonment of criminals is justified. Imprisonment of non-criminals is not justified. If non-criminals are denounced as criminals, and then imprisoned, that doesn't make imprisonment wrong in all cases. If someone is killed because they are a non-person, when they are in fact a person, then most people would agree that this is wrong. That does not affect the killing of a non-person who is in fact a non-person. The misuse of personhood by the Nazis or by slave owners is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the unborn foetus actually is a person. If so, you have a case. All you need to do is show it to be true instead of just claiming it. Good luck.

No, it is perfectly relevant, sir. I am amazed you are blind to the parallels.

As I said: abortion supporters use arbitrary factors in determining personhood so they can justify abortion. When you apply these factors to those who are born--you can justify just about any atrocity you want.

Put another way: abortion supporters never really get around to explaining why a fetus is not a person. "Well, it is small and does not look like a human being." What does size and appearance have to do with being human? They do not say. "Well, the fetus is in the womb, born people are out of the womb." What does location have to do with being human? "Well a fetus cannot survive on its own." What does the ability to survive on one's own have to do with being human? "Well a fetus does not breath on its own." What does the ability to breath on one's own have to do with being human?

Abortion supporters never really get around to explaining any of the above. There is no one statement above that cannot be applied to someone who is born---at different points.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

That doesn't solve the problem that is her unwanted pregnancy. Abortion does.

The pregnancy, sir, is NOT the problem. It doesn't matter how the woman subjectively sees the pregnancy.

The PROBLEM, sir, is irresponsible use of sexuality. When one uses their sexuality responsibly, one does not get "unexpected pregnancies."

 

[Eightcrackers]

The pregnancy, sir, is NOT the problem.

Says you.
But when a pregnant woman tells me that her pregnancy is a problem, whom do you think I'm going to listen to?

The PROBLEM, sir, is irresponsible use of sexuality.

That is the cause of the problem that is unwanted pregnancies.

When one uses their sexuality responsibly, one does not get "unexpected pregnancies."

Agree 100%.
But when an unwanted pregnancy does happen, this hectoring does nothing to address it.

 

[Temujin]

No, it is perfectly relevant, sir. I am amazed you are blind to the parallels.

As I said: abortion supporters use arbitrary factors in determining personhood so they can justify abortion. When you apply these factors to those who are born--you can justify just about any atrocity you want.

Put another way: abortion supporters never really get around to explaining why a fetus is not a person. "Well, it is small and does not look like a human being." What does size and appearance have to do with being human? They do not say. "Well, the fetus is in the womb, born people are out of the womb." What does location have to do with being human? "Well a fetus cannot survive on its own." What does the ability to survive on one's own have to do with being human? "Well a fetus does not breath on its own." What does the ability to breath on one's own have to do with being human?

Abortion supporters never really get around to explaining any of the above. There is no one statement above that cannot be applied to someone who is born---at different points.

There is no issue that a foetus is human. The issue is whether it is a person.

Can you envisage a person who is not human? They abound in science fiction. Would you agree that Yoda for example, is a person. If so, what makes him a person? What characteristics allow people to identify with him and react to him as a person, even while knowing that he is a fictional character? That might help you grasp the fact that a foetus is not as person.

Person is defined in law as an individual who has taken at least one breath. Leaving Yoda aside, a person is human, born and alive. Being human and born is not enough, as a corpse is not a person. Being human and alive is not enough as a foetus is not a person. It makes no more sense to me to make a foetus a person than to do the same with a corpse. Being a person is a stage that most humans go through. It lasts from when they are born to when they did. During this period they are independent, separate individuals, endowed with rights by the society they are born into. Before and after, they are not persons,and have no rights. You might consider this situation to be wrong, but you need to show why change should be made. So far, no joy. All you have done is strawman a few invented arguments for abortion.

 

[Nedsk]

They might well have said the same thing. History proved them wrong. So far history has proved those who deny that the foetus is a person to be right. I cannot think of a single society where the foetus has been regarded as a person. Individuals and fringe groups may do do. You may even do so, but society as represented by its political and legislative leaders has never acknowledged the foetus as a person. Frankly, I don't think that they ever will, since doing so would make a mockery of the term.

To make abortion equivalent to slavery or the Holocaust you must show that the foetus is equivalent to the slave or the jew. That is, you must show that it is a person. It is not treated as a person, sure. But there is a simple reason for that which has not been addressed or even attempted.

Show that the foetus is a person. Legally, morally, politically, biologically, financially, anyway you like. Define a person then show that the foetus fits that description.

Yeah well the 65 million dead will feel much better about the history.

We would have to discuss why "person" is the deciding factor of who lives and does and then define what a person is. There are people who think whales and dolphins are people. I don't think those who claim that are sensible.

Well first a fetus has distinct DNA which means it does not belong to anyone else and is a separate entity.

 

[Temujin]

Yeah well the 65 million dead will feel much better about the history.

We would have to discuss why "person" is the deciding factor of who lives and does and then define what a person is. There are people who think whales and dolphins are people. I don't think those who claim that are sensible.

Well first a fetus has distinct DNA which means it does not belong to anyone else and is a separate entity.

Do you think that social matters should be determined by biology?

The foetus is totally dependent on the umbilical cord and the placenta. It is biologically speaking, a parasite. It is not a distinct entity at all.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

This relates to abortion, how?

Try to pay attention.

Your Komrades dehumanize like your Hitler.

Why don't you know this?

A fetus is, by definition, a parasite. Calling it one is a sign of a mind that knows something about the fact.

The fact that a fetus is a parasite says nothing whatsoever about whether or not it can or should be carried to term or aborted. It is merely a biological fact.

 

[Nedsk]

Do you think that social matters should be determined by biology?

The foetus is totally dependent on the umbilical cord and the placenta. It is biologically speaking, a parasite. It is not a distinct entity at all.

I have no idea what you mean but the best answer until you clarify is, it depends on the matter.

That's not what I said though. So a person in a coma on a respirator is not a distinct entity?