Stanek weekend question: Is abortion really comparable to the Holocaust or slavery?
Life Report: Pro-life Talk, Real World Answers is in the process of responding to a pro-abort YouTube video spouting 55 “Pro-Life Lies.”
This week, Life Report evaluates the charge that pro-lifers lie to say abortion is worse than the Holocaust or slavery, delving further to ask, even if so, are we wise to make the point to pro-choicers?
What do you think?
FYI, here are the thoughts of Life Report’s commentators, host Josh Brahm and co-hosts Liz and Kyle Goddard…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJbwRf9oZP4[/youtube]
May.21, 2011 11:39 am |
Weekend question |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
They are correct in this excellent video. I have seen that using the Holocaust and slavery in defending the pro-life position can be very effective for many. But I have also encountered those who think that using the genocide display at Justice For All exhibits is taking advantage of the death of millions of Jews. They often get so upset that the discussion never gets past that point. When that starts happening it’s time to refocus the topic to the unborn that are being killed.
Totally. All the same excuses once used to justify slavery and/or the “final solution” are nearly identical to the ones used to excuse, justify, or distract from the horror of abortion.
They aren’t fully human (people) -slavery/holocaust
If YOU don’t like it, don’t do it! -slavery
You must think of the damage (insert other group of people) do/could do to (the elites). -holocaust
or (to themselves) -slavery
They have no greater potential or purpose -slavery
Human weeds/useless eaters destined to become criminals and drain society (live on welfare) -holocaust
etc etc
I mean seriously. It’s hard to deny the parallels unless you are simply tooooo desperate and stubborn to deny the truth of the pre-born’s humanity to protect your world-view. Once you admit they are human, their plight locks cleanly into place with the plights of the holocaust Jews and slave-era blacks. It’s undeniable. No excuse used to destroy/abuse an entire group of people for “their own good -slavery” or “the good of society -holocaust” has not been used before. Pro-aborts can’t help but repeat these two nightmarish chapters in history in their defense of the indefensible.
Go ahead, murder or enslave my baby; I’ll make more. So this the best line of attack the pro-infanticide crowd can muster? Right. Only in the twisted, perverted mindset of Sanger’s ”ethnic cleansers.”
Abortion IS a Holocaust. Slavery says that a group of people are “property” and can be used/treated/disposed of however the “slave owner” wants.
How can you NOT compare abortion to both?
Josh – the number 50 million is only the cumulative in the USA. Realistically, one should take into account the world-wide totals, which is approximately 42 million per year.
We simply don’t consider the unborn as meaningful human beings, because if we did, our actions would reflect our belief.
Absolutely, on both counts.
If you look at the arguments that were used to defend slavery, for example, they are strikingly similar to those used to defend abortion.
I read an Elie Wiesel quote once about abortion and he said that he did not like it when people compared abortion to the Holocaust- he made it clear that they were not the same thing.
But I’m glad that you bring this up because people really need to think about the impact that their words have. Words can seriously inflame a debate or injure a movement.
As it stands, I do not like equating abortion with slavery or the Holocaust. If one wants to point out similarities in the arguments used for, say slavery, it must be done in an educated and sincere manner. I know some people (and I’m not saying everyone or anyone specifically, just some people) use the slavery argument as a “Gotcha!” type of argument and nothing can be more counterproductive/obnoxious than smugness.
So I find these comparisons very inflammatory, but on the other hand, I think pro-choicers say some pretty inflammatory things, too, and that must end as well. Comparing pro-life people to the Taliban is just as bad as comparing pro-choice people to the Nazis. This kind of rhetoric is used to scare people or use emotions to win people over, and it contributes to the level of vitriol that goes on in this debate.
I would challenge both pro-lifers and pro-choicers to think of abortion as not a matter of who is more evil but in a matter of what brings about peace and prosperity and justice. If we start on the premise that all humans are created equal and truly listen to each other we can move mountains. Also, if everyone changed the approach from “Abortion: Legal or Not?” to “Equal Rights and Justice for Women and Children: How do We Go about Getting This?” we would, as an entire species, actually cover some ground.
So, yeah…chatty answer, I know, but I do not agree with comparing abortion to the Holocaust or slavery. If one hundred years from now people say that abortion is like the Holocaust, then they will be able to. But for this day and age, it only appeals to an irrational side of us and invites more caustic, fruitless debate.
Totally agree that abortion is a holocaust!!! A group of human beings targeted for death by the millions.
Vannah,
I will not mince words with those that feel it is hunky dory to kill innocent, preborn human beings in the womb. I am beyond caring about that.
PS Abortion is evil.
These moral equivalency dichotomies are inherently flawed.
Someone noted that a terminally ill comatose patience could, in some places, legally be given a lethal injection, but it would be a crime to have sex with her either before or after the injection.
“Someone noted that a terminally ill comatose patience could, in some places, legally be given a lethal injection, but it would be a crime to have sex with her either before or after the injection.”
What does that have to do with anything we’re talking about here?
Funny that Elie Wiesel thinks he or anyone has a monopoly on genocide, apparently abortion doesn’t seem all that bad to him. It is a sin that” cries out to heaven for vengence”, according to scripture (the shedding of innocent blood). We are pathetic when we have to put child murder on a graph or scale and examine whether it measures up as a legit “holocaust” compared to the holygrail of other holocausts. This points to the culture of deaths inability to acknowledge the unborn as entitled human biengs, and especially the failure of learned men to tell the truth. Immaculata, Sorrowful Mother-pray for us.
What does that have to do with anything we’re talking about here?
Which crime is worse rape or murder?
I was referring to a comment on another thread. I guess I typed over the rape/murder question. Sorry for the confusion.
I pretty much agree with the LifeReport crew. Abortion is certainly a comparable evil to slavery and the holocaust. And the arguments used to defend it are most definitely similar (in some cases, they’re the same arguments with different words in the fill-in-the-blank spaces).
However, when you start saying, “This one was worse!” or “That one isn’t as bad!” then you’re basically doing Oppression Olympics, which is never a useful exercise. All that does is alienates various groups and creates an “Us vs. Them” mentality. It doesn’t really matter who suffers more than whom. The only thing that matters is making it stop.
I think that abortion is exactly like the Holocaust, slavery and even the Pol Pot Regime in Cambodia. It is about one group of people devaluing another group for it’s own purposes. Slave owners, Nazi’s nor PolPot would listen to logic and had to be stopped by force because they believed their own lies so deeply. They were delusional and therefore could not be reasoned with. In the same way I believe that the majority of hard core pro-abortionists will not be reasoned with and therefore the stopping of abortion will have to be forced through laws because proponents are likewise delusional. The problem is that they spread this delusion to others as if it were truth and people who are ignorant about the realities of abortion believe them. This is why pages like this one that educates people on the truth of abortion are so important.
I agree totally with Alice – Abortion should be compared with other human rights violations – BUT should not be branded as worse. This is not a numbers’ game. Atrocities, whether the hurt/death of one, or the hurt/death of millions is still one too many.
Being sensitive to survivor sensibilities, we should not inflame the situation further. Some holocaust experts welcome the comparison to abortion, others do not. We should respect their dignity also.
We can use the comparison – compassionately, honestly, factually and peacefully. To force the issue with shouting “we have more death’ does not reach the heart. Only in love does the heart respond.
Otherwise – getting the word out is good. Better to deal with the message compassionately and an cooperatively as possible while still educating, demonstrating the humanity of the lost, and speaking the facts about the toll of abortion.
I attend a Messianic Congregation. The pastor/rabbi there is very sensitive to Holocaust issues. He’s of Jewish ancestry, and his wife is the daughter of Holocast survivors. But he is also very against abortion. He’s been arrested and spent time in jail for blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic. He does say that abortion is like the holocaust. I’ve heard him make that comparison in his sermon once. It seems that as a Jewish ancestry person, he’s OK to say that. But I’d be a little nervous to say that out loud around Jews, for fear of offending them. Even if I believe it, I’d be cautious to say it out loud in public.
Many people don’t uderstand how cruel and violent abortion is. Such people can feel that comparing abortion to the holocaust cheapens the horror of the holocaust, and insults its victims. This is not the intention at all. But if you have no clue about the humanity of the fetus, or the violence of abortion, its understandable that you’d think such a comparison chapens the horror of the holocaust. This is why I’m careful about who I express this comparison to.
Hi Hippie,
Yeah, I didn’t get the point you were trying to make, thanks for helping to clear up my confusion!
I think we have a responsibility to bring up the similarities between abortion and the Holocaust and slavery… most people today recognize the inherent evil in those historical atrocities and so it can be a starting step for abortion as well. However, it’s important that we don’t belittle the lives affected by the Holocaust or slavery, but just use them to draw parallels.
I actually wrote on this recently, how I was uneasy about the fact that abortion was not included in the modern genocide exhibit at the Holocaust Museum in DC… if you look at the definition of genocide, abortion fits right into the description.
Whatever the other similarities may or may not be, one thing’s for sure, abortion, like slavery and the holocaust, will only go on so long as the majority shield themselves from knowing and seeing what is really going on. William Wilberforce making his friends go on board a slave ship is just the same tactic as showing graphic pictures, and it’s the right one.
Jew’s do not possess an exclusive right to the use of ’holocaust’.
The word ‘holocaust’ pre-dates the NAZI’s.
There have been and will be ‘holocausts’ other than the ‘Jewish’ holocaust.
Joseph Stalin deliberately killed more than 10 million people.
Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, killed their millions. Even some American presidents attempted to destroy indigenous people groups in what is now the USA.
When Truman ordered the dropping of the atom bombs on Hirioshima and Nagasaki, those were by definition ‘holocausts’, tho they were both acts or war, and in the end probably resulted in far few fatalities on both sides than the alternative of an invasion and a protracted land war on the Japanese Islands.
holocaust
1 : a sacrifice consumed by fire
2 : a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire <a nuclear holocaust> 3. a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with the
b : a mass slaughter of people; especially : genocide
For Jews to be offended at use of the term ‘holocaut’ to describe the hundreds of millions of deaths attributable to abortion is to say Jews are more equal than other humans.
Their ‘book’ does not support that position. They are GOD’s ‘chosen’ people, not because they are superior, but simply because GOD determined to love and bless them.
[GOD does not love us because we are ‘special’. We are special because GOD loves us and acknowledges us as HIS own.]
For those Jews who are Jews by birth only, and not by faith in the GOD of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, they have even less reason to claim some sort of superior status. They have rejected both Yahweh and Yeshua.
By their very actions they have declared they are merely equally human with all other humans unless they eroneoulsy believe that being a ‘victim’ elevates your status above that of non-victims.
It is good that the GOD of Abraham, Issac and Jacob does not share their view and that HE keeps HIS promises and, if they will accept it, they are fellow heirs and beneficiaries of those self same promises, the best of whom is their Messiah, one Yeshua.
Whether people agree with the comparisions or not, it’s important to understand that this is not about trivializing the tragedies of the holocaust or slavery but rather to emphasize how tragic abortion is itself. I don’t think it matters so much whether or not abortion technically meets the def. of a holocaust, becuase however you define it a massive amount of human beings are dying and that needs to stop.
You know when you look at the kind of arguments that are used to support abortion, they are very similar to the arguments slave owners and the confederates used to justify slavery. It’s hard not to compare abortion to slavery if you notice the parallels between the two, for instance:
Just like pro-choicers, the slaveowners use the “it’s legal” argument,
they use the “right to privacy argument” as in, slaveowners had a right to own slaves on their property.
Both dehumanize a group of people and redefine what a person is to justify what they were doing.
Those in the confederacy also argued that the north were forcing their beliefs on the Confederate’s way of life. The same way pro-choicers argue that pro-lifers are forcing their morality on them.
I believe that Lincoln said to Stephen Douglas regarding Slavery, ”you don’t have a right to do what is wrong”
That argument sums up the pro-choice attitude about abortion rights.
When there are so many similarities it is important not to ignore them. It’s critical that we learn from history so we don’t repeat it in a different way. For that reason we should compare abortion to other tragedies in the world. Not to determine which is worse but simply to give perspective as to why abortion is wrong.
Abortion is the same as the holocaust in the sense that a group of people are being systematically destroyed. To me without undermining what slaves went through I think abortion is worse than slavery. Although abortion has similarities with both the holocaust and slavery in my opinion it is far worse because the unborn have no way to defend themselves. And whereas with the holocaust and slavery it was easy to define and see the wrongs being committed with abortion because the unborn are not visible it makes it harder for people to understand their plight. So was the holocaust an atrocity of course it was. Did slavery demoralize and subject a race of people to cruelty of course it did. Is abortion worse yes because the only voice the unborn have is ours and we are failing them miserably.
Anyone has the ‘right’ to compare the crimson holocaust of abortion to the holocaust of WWII and to slavery. History and language aren’t the domain of the “politically correct.”
And besides, the word hypocrite is hardly strong enough to describe someone who tells me how to compare and use words, while at the same time defending and promoting the abortion of innocent human children. Are we a polite yet brutally violent society? It might seem so.
ninek
I believe the hard core abortionists do have a degree of understanding of the human psyche and are moderately adept at using this to their advantage. They play the game very effectively. Because as humans we sometimes have trouble seeing past ourselves it is easy to convince victims that of course there tragedy is of course worse than any present tragedy. As a victim of any tragedy this should make us more sensitive to the tragedies of others not less. Fear is one of their most effective weapons. Hopefully that will change soon.
I’m currently reading The Genocidal Mentality: Nazi Holocaust and Nuclear Threat by (Dr.) Robert Jay Lifton and Eric Markusen. It is well researched, delineates the parallels and differences of the two topics, and shows the commonalities of the mentality of genocide–any genocide–of which abortion is one. In no way does it call into question whether abortion is genocide.
(This, though, in no way is intended to minimize the horror of what our Jewish brothers and sisters–we are all God’s children–went through at the hands of the Nazis.)
“Lest we forget”? We have forgotten.
Lisa
Years ago I read The Hiding Place by Corrie Ten Boom. That kind of gave me a little insight into what the Holocaust must have been like. In the book Corrie’s sister Bessie, more forgiving than Corrie, was able to see past what was there present situation to the future when the death camps would no longer exist. I think the problem most people have is that unlike the death camps of the holocaust and the atrocities of slavery is that one is internal and one external. The pre-born are more abstract. For Corrie to leave this type of environment and go on to not only write a book but to preach as well to me is a testament to the strength of the human spirit.
I have a vague recollection of hearing a story about something happening maybe 4000 years ago, or was it 6000, which may have been the biggest ever holocaust. Not sure.
There were some solid coherent arguments presented, but I’m shocked at the notion that one should NOT compare abortion to slavery in order to be sensitive to one’s possible Confederate family history. Should one be sensitive to non-Jewish German heritage when discussing the evil of the Holocaust? If one is speaking to a group who’s historical sensitivities are so tied to a defeated former slavery-dominated South, then one should reconsider the audience he/she is aligned with.
I feel like they needed a better sense of the history of American slavery; at least 2-3 million (extremely conservative estimate) died during just the Middle Passage alone. This doesn’t include those who died during capture and transport on the West coast of Africa, nor those killed once arriving on U.S. soil. There are quantifiable numbers that make the U.S. slave trade a holocaust just as comparably evil as Hitler’s attempt to wipe out the Jewish people.
Vannah said: “I would challenge both pro-lifers and pro-choicers to think of abortion as not a matter of who is more evil but in a matter of what brings about peace and prosperity and justice. If we start on the premise that all humans are created equal and truly listen to each other we can move mountains.”
I love that Vannah. I agree w/u. Nice to hear a pro-choicer say that on this blog.
I do have to disagree on the other points bc I do believe as a person of Jewish descent that abortion is very much comparable to the Holocaust.
Ryan
I think in order to compare it you would have to compare the amount of victims of each atrocities. That being the Jewish Holocaust, slavery of the African people and killing of the unborn. A study would have to be very in depth and look at numbers, the impact on the family structure, and the impact on the individuals who were and are still being targeted. To me the major difference is the vulnerability and the degree of dependance the unborn has own it’s mom, it’s community and it’s nation. There chance of physical escape is zero. Of course with the Jewish Holocaust and Slavery this also happened but it differed in degrees. Not one of the babies aborted had a way of escape. I guess though to fully appreciate that an individual would have to be able to see the humanity of the unborn; something some are unwilling or just refuse to do. Thank you for bringing up the middle passage because when I think of slavery I often forget their passage on ships and the violence they had to endure.
Abortion in this culture seems to be a very abstract idea. Most Americans have never seen an abortion. They only see the effects of the pregnancy – and then the effects go away. By comparing it to the Jewish Holocaust (there are many holocausts) in WWII and slavery makes the horrors of abortion more tangible in some people’s minds.
Making the comparison does not in any way minimize what the Jews went through. It is simply saying: Look at the horror that happened to this people group. It’s happening again right here, under our noses.
Studying the Holocaust is what sparked me to get more involved in fighting for life. I asked myself what would I have done had I been Polish living near a death camp, or in Germany, as I watched my friends disappear. And then it slammed me like a brick: Your peers are disappearing. Millions of them. Brutally being murdered. Their mothers’ lives are being torn to bits. You can’t do anything about the Holocaust because it’s over. Abortion is now and you need to be doing something.
Yes, the comparison can be very useful.
http://gloria.tv/?media=159280
Today’s Holocaust
Re: myrtle miller, “Years ago I read The Hiding Place by Corrie Ten Boom.”
Myrtle, that was an insightful book, wasn’t it. We read an excerpt from it in RCIA class many years ago, and I immediately put it on my list of books to read. I was not disappointed that I did so.
Re: myrtle miller, “I think the problem most people have is that…one is internal and one external. The pre-born are more abstract.”
Although that sounds reasonable on the surface, there is a significant portion of the population who have little difficulty with the abstract, which is actually the starting point of their thought process (as compared to thought process starting in the concrete). The genocidal mentality (and genocidal systems) is more complex that that. It includes a psychological process involving dissociation or splitting, psychic numbing, brutalization, doubling,* which shows a concrete awareness (that what they are participating in is murder).
What is disturbing is that one parallel element of genocide is the ideology that genocide is a form of healing. In the case of the Nazis, “the idea that a cure for the sickness of the Nordic race lies in destroying the infecting agent–namely, the Jews”.** In the case of abortion, it is the idea that a cure for the ‘sickness’ infecting women lies in destroying the infecting agent–namely, our children.
Another disturbing “parallel lies in the overall participation of professionals in the genocidal system, for example, physicians and biologists in the Nazi case, and physicists and strategists in the nuclear. And still another parallel is the vast societal involvement in a genocidal project….”.*** It is obvious that in the abortion case, this list of professionals includes physicians, nurses, social workers, biologists, those in each level of government, etc. Without buy-in and participation from the professional community genocide cannot happen!
There is far too much more to include in a comment, but this will begin to unveil for the reader what is actually involved in a mentality of genocide, and thus unveil another avenue or tool to combat it!
*Robert Jay Lifton and Eric Markusen, The Genocidal Mentality: Nazi Holocaust and Nuclear Threat (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1990), p. 13.
**Ibid, p. 12.
*** Ibid.
Re: Reality, “…something happening maybe 4000 years ago, or was it 6000, which may have been the biggest ever holocaust.”
You bring up a good point. What you are referring to, I believe, is The Great Flood (notwithstanding the debatable literalness of the 6000-year-ago timeframe) which is told in the Bible (Genesis 6-8). However, the fact that a great number of people died is where any parallel ends.
Your argument has more in common with declaring the killing of the Nazis a holocaust, if such an assertion were to be made. The people that died in The Great Flood were not innocent, but posed a real threat to the life (eternal and physical) of the innocent,* like the Nazis posed a real threat to the innocent Jews and others. These threats were intentional (as opposed to the unintentional threat which carrying a pre-born child could cause, in some circumstances, to a mother’s life).
Further, God is the Creator of what He destroyed (and He did not destroy the innocent). Although we can cooperate in creating human beings, we are not their Creator.
In Christian terms, The Enemy, wanting to be God and not at all God-like, does God-ish things in a greatly distorted way. This distortion spills over to our actions, thoughts, etc. whenever we follow him (by falling to temptation) rather than following God. (An example of this is how the Satanic black mass is a distortion of the Catholic Mass.) In this way, genocide is a distortion of The Great Flood.
*The guilty were destroyed (note: all the following Bible references are from the NRSV):
Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.
Genesis 6:11-13 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them….”
The innocent were not harmed:
Genesis 6:9 ….Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation….
Genesis 7:1 Then the LORD said to Noah, “…I have seen that you alone are righteous before me in this generation.”
Really…… I mean really….. Wow.
You are talking about entire families wiped out. You are talking about fathers, mothers, children, and grandparents being herded up like animals and shipped off to do back breaking manual labor until they died. Giant trucks full of eye glasses and gold teeth being hauled away from the piles of dead bodies before they are buried in mass graves. You are talking about over 400 years of racial oppression and civil rights violations. Men having their feet cut off and strung up in a tree because they dared to learn how to read a few words. You are talking about human history changing events.
You guys know that these are false equivalents. You are just trying to make the plight of the unwanted fetus more drama filled. You are minimizing the horror those people went through and are still fighting against today. I think it is just plain wrong.
You cannot raise compassion for the unwanted fetus by being uncompassionate to another group of people who have suffered much more hardship and pain.
While I understand the desperate grasping of terms with significant negative connotations in an attempt to add ‘heft’ to your campaigning, I find the application of terms such as ‘holocaust’ and ‘genocide’ to be fallacious.
‘Holocausts’ and ‘genocides’ are generally considered to be centrally planned and implemented programs with the specific aim of complete eradication of a particular group based on race, religion, color, ethos or similar.
Abortion is the legal allowance for seperate, non-aligned individuals to be able to choose to terminate some pregnancies is some cases. There is no centrally planned and implemented program to eradicate all fetuses.
These are manifestly different scenarios.
Lisa, the flood was a centrally planned and implemented program to eradicate an entire group. So for whatever reason, it is more like a holocaust than abortion is. The nazis weren’t eradicated. Some of their leaders were brought to justice. There was no holocaust against them.
@Biggz, you just conflated Slavery with the Holocaust and made the same error you accuse pro-lifers of.
@Reality, look at your comments closely. “Abortion is the legal allowance for seperate, non-aligned individuals to be able to choose to terminate some pregnancies is some cases.” Euphemistic much? I understand that you don’t think the unborn child is on the same moral plane as the mother…but…really? When your mother got pregnant and decided to keep you, did she decide that she was a “separate, non-aligned individual?” Can you at least see how and why it’s easy for pro-lifers to look at statements like that and see the same dehumanizing language used to make slavery and the Holocaust more palatable?
Also, “genocides are usually centrally planned.” Most of the “big” genocides we’ve seen in the last century have been centrally planned because the people committing genocide happened to have big industrial bases or strong central governments, so they used those tools. Rwanda? Not so much with their dime-store machetes. And in fact, while the Nazi targeting of the Jews gets most of the attention, WW II unleashed a horrifying scale of group violence against ethnic/political/religious minorities throughout Eastern Europe, most of it was just the moral degradation brought about by mass warfare, and carried out by and against small local communities. As society becomes ever more networked, I’m sure we’ll one day see net-genocide (and I don’t mean the mass destruction of all facebook profiles that like “nickleback”).
Anyhow…
“Holocaust” was mentioned earlier as being a term predating WW II and the Nazis. That’s true. “Holocaust” means “burnt offering,” so it’s a somewhat “poetic” description of what happened. “Holocaust” never meant genocide until the Nazis.
From the pro-life perspective, it’s very easy to make valid comparisons between Slavery, Nazism, and Abortion. All involve dehumanizing language and the psychological relegation of the victim good to a sub-human status that makes it acceptable to either kill or treat brutally.
You can also make the point about all three (though slavery less so) being an attempt to remake the natural order or even conquer/subdue/change it, often along with an accompanying almost Utopian vision for society that will be achieved through overcoming nature, or oppositely unlocking the full potential of nature (allowing the Aryan race to flourish, establishing the freedom to assert ourselves as sexually liberated beings). As the Holocaust was supposed to help the Aryan race assert itself by cleansing internal disease and sickness, abortion is necessary to help us transcend our history of being constrained by biology.
There are differences, however.
I’d separate Slavery from the other two, for the obvious point that killing slaves wasn’t the point. Millions of slaves did die, but the point was slavery after all, and not to kill them. Similar result, but when analyzing motives and a sort of philosophical “what’s the nature of the thing,” an important distinction. Slavery also has a very very long history, and not always racially motivated or as intentionally dehumanizing.
Also, at least some and probably many pro-aborts do think that they’re not “pro-abortion” in the sense of viewing abortion as some sort of “positive good” (though the term “pro-abortion” in public policy sense is perfectly appropriate, as the end result is the same). Many probably think of abortion as either a necessary evil or just morally neutral, something you have to do only insofar as it’s removing an obstacle on the way to an ideological accomplishment.
The Nazis, on the other hand, viewed killing Jews as an absolute “good.” At the end of the war as the Soviets were advancing into Eastern Europe, the Germans were rushing to grab every Jew in Romania they could find even though the Soviets were about to “liberate” Romania, at which point the Jews there really shouldn’t have meant anything to Berlin. Nazi policy viewed killing Jews as a positive good, a war aim on the same level of importance as beating the allies (thus the train loads still carrying Jews to the chambers even when rail capacity was needed for traditional war aims).
So, similar underlying factors in all three cases that make drawing parallels very useful and worthwhile in showing HOW abortion functions (large scale, dehumanizing, etc), and some similarities in motivations (conquer nature/history, etc.), but not 100% the same in motivations (though I do think individuals like Kermitt Gosnell could get along with Himler).
Lisa
Having never studied thought processes I had to do a little research, This is what I found. abstract-considered apart from concrete existence. Abstract thinking is a high level though process. Somone who is thinking abstractly is considerering a concept in a broad general and non-specific way. Depth of Thought Abstract thinking consider not just specific objects (for example, a robin) but broad concepts such as birds, general. So my statement after looking up the definition to me still makes sense to me. This in my opinion is why planned parenthood fights ultrasounds. Of course if I’m still wrong please continue to educate me, God knows I need it!
Wow Fabius-good explanations. :)
Another point of interest is the fact that several notorious Nazis who fled after the War became abortionists including Dr. Josef Mengele (well known for his experiments on children during his Nazi days).
And RU486 is made by the same company that made the deadly Zyklon-B gas used to kill Jews in the gas chambers.
Nice slice of erudition Fabius. Well, almost.
You appear the have misunderstood what I was imparting.
By non-aligned individuals, I meant that each woman makes her choice of action individually and seperately. It is not centrally planned and implemented. I wasn’t making a comparative reference between women and fetuses.
The rest of your piece generates a modicum of interest and even a few facts. But the reality is that in the ‘Jewish holocaust’ we had a significant element of one group undertaking a determined effort to eradicate another group based on a specific difference. In the ‘Rwandan genocide’ we also had a significant element of one group undertaking a determined effort to eradicate another group based on a specific difference. This is not the case with abortion. Nor is it a ‘conquering’ mindset. So the attempt at drawing parallels is erroneous.
And BMW made aircraft engines in both world wars Kris.
Reality “In the ‘Rwandan genocide’ we also had a significant element of one group undertaking a determined effort to eradicate another group based on a specific difference. This is not the case with abortion.”
The specific difference that abortion is based on is 1.not being born and 2. being deemed “unwanted” (much like the Jews were unwanted by those with power).
I googled to get the definition of genocide and done a little reading. This is what I found. Genocide is against international law. The accepted definition of genocide is and to be guilty just one of these acts have to be committed.
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent ot destroy, in whole or in part,
(a) killing members of the group
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
(c) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
(d) delibertely inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. This is according to the United Nation Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide.
Of course I should google eugenics before I make this statement but I’m assuming practioners of eugenics would also be guilty of genocide.
So according to you Myrtle, every woman who has ever had an abortion should be charged with genocide. Good luck with that.
This is in response to a post made at 11:55
Read the definition again and take your time. This is legal ground for women who have been targeted. Of course you who are a champion of womens rights would not want to see women targeted based on the color of their skin and/or their socio-economic status. Try to spin that. Make a real effort though. Your getting repetitive.
Unless you were representing that abortion equates to genocide I just found your comment to be confused Myrtle.
I would force no woman or group of women to have abortions. In fact in some recent conflicts there have been multiple rapes rather than abortions so as to inflict ‘impurity’ on a targetted ethnic or religious group. What term would we give that?
Response to 12:37 post:
If a group of people are targeted for the color of their skin or their socio-economic group and members of their group that would include their offspring by the process of abortion if eugenics could be proved this would be a legal grounds for crimes against international law and would constitute genocide. If planned parenthood or any organization demanded or implemented any measure that made it mandatory for any women to be deprived of her legal right to have children and a pattern emerged that showed women of a particular group were being targeted than that group according to the United Convention on the Prevention of the crime of Genocide would have legal recourse because a crime has been committed. And I’m not sure if the unborn or legally defined as being a group of people but if they are then population control would also be genocide according to this defintion. That’s explaining in more detail the post I made at 11:42. Hope this helps. Have my doubts though. If so insist on playing in that pig stye. Play by yourself.
The term your looking for if your referring to what is being done to the albinos in Africa is atrocity.
That’s clearer, thank you.
“If planned parenthood or any organization demanded or implemented any measure that made it mandatory for any women to be deprived of her legal right to have children and a pattern emerged that showed women of a particular group were being targeted” – I would be against it too. I can’t see it happening though.
“pig stye” – taking lessons from Gerad Prince Charming Nadal are we? But were you referring to where pigs dwell or an infection of the sebaceous gland in a pig?
“The term your looking for if your referring to what is being done to the albinos in Africa is atrocity.”- absolutely! That’s not quite the situation my question referred to though.
Response to 1:36 post:
They’ve been doing that. Look at where they place there clinics. The reference to the pig stye I wondered where that came from. For me it just means stop defending something you should know is not right. It means you can’t listen to all the facts about abortion and still believe it doesn’t hurt a baby. What situation did your question refer too.
“They’ve been doing that. Look at where they place there clinics.” – wrong conclusion.
“What situation did your question refer too.” – the situation that a pig lives in a sty and a stye lives in an eye.
“What situation did your question refer too.”- the situation that a pig lives in a sty and a stye lives in an eye.
And either one would cause grief.
What ethical arguments can really be made for killing the Jews or for legalizing slavery?
Contrast that with the fact that bodily autonomy is a valid concern in a free society. This is not to say that there aren’t valid concerns about the unborn too, but that’s where the issue is, not with silly stuff about the Holocaust and slavery.
Doug
You should read “The Hiding Place” by Corrie ten Boom and you’ll get some insight into what they went through and if you google The Middle Passage you’ll see that what was done to the African people was really bad. Bodily Autonomy is usually an issue when women have little control over their own lives. That’s what needs to change. Empowering women is the real solution not killing babies.
Fabius – No I didn’t. I just used the two examples they gave. I in no way equate slavery and the holocaust. I did however hear Glen Beck this morning say that socialism and communism are slow forms of slavery and I almost ran off the road…
Kris – Most of the modern technology we enjoy today came from German scientists after the war was over. We got about half of them and Russia got almost the other entire half. There would be no space program in both countries without them or even jets for that matter. Medical science would be nowhere near as advanced as it is.
Lastly Kris there is no large group of people trying to wipe out all fetuses. Abortion is a decision made by one person about their own personal medical health. No genocide definition would apply here.
As other have stated on this blog, I understand the desire to connect some past human horror to abortion to give your argument more punch but the historical facts do not support your claim and make you look uneducated to the people you argue with.
myrtle miller – So PP puts clinics in low-income areas of most major cities and that somehow equates to racial genocide???
You do understand that PP is a non-profit organization that offers sexual healthcare at a discounted rate to low-income men and women? Would it not make sense to place clinics for low-income people in the low-income areas of any given city? PP caters to people who do not have insurance, is there anyone in Beverly Hills that needs help paying for healthcare?
If the majority of low-income Americans are minorities then wouldn’t the better question be Why are so many minorities in America in the low-income bracket? Also you might note that there are PP clinics in low-income areas that have almost no minority population like the Appalachian mountain areas or Montana, North and South Dakota, and Wyoming?
PP will give service to anyone who walks through the door regardless of race, sexual orientation, or income bracket.
You should read “The Hiding Place” by Corrie ten Boom and you’ll get some insight into what they went through and if you google The Middle Passage you’ll see that what was done to the African people was really bad.
Myrtle, no argument there.
____
Bodily Autonomy is usually an issue when women have little control over their own lives. That’s what needs to change. Empowering women is the real solution not killing babies.
Well, the best thing would be if there were no more unwanted pregnancies. Poof – everybody’s happy. I hear you on empowering women, but I don’t think there are going to be zero “really empowered” women who want to end pregnancies.
Biggz
Not to be facious but if you don’t mind when asking a question please don’t put my name by your question. Thanks. Biggz, thank you for asking the question,”So PP puts clinics in low income areas of most major citiies and that equates to genocide how? Biggz you are actually correct I wiil give you a little background on Margaret Sangers beliefs I believe she is the grandmother to the individual who currently runs planned parenthood. When researching genocide I assumed incorrectly that of course targeting socio-economic that included imposed measures to prevent births within the group would constitute genocide. The law though does not include socio-economic groups. It includes or protects four groups-national, ethnical, racial or religious groups.
Now because you are assuming that planned parenthood motives are humanitarian or charitable I will give you a little background on it’s founder Mrs. Margaret Sanger and what her beliefs were and according to what I read Planned Parenthood could be tried for the crime of genocide and any individual or individuals who have acting in a complicit manner to facilitate Planned Parenthoods agenda. In order to understand what constitutes genocide you can go to these two links and then I will share what I have learned with you to prove planned parenthoods complicity to facilitate actions that constitute genocide. It might take two posts so bear with me read it well and if you have any questions that are genuine in nature I will do my best to answer them unless the answer is in the reading material I have provided. Hope all of this helps. http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project htm and prevent genocide international.
There are two elements of the crimes of genocide. They include mental element and physical element. the mental element meaning the intent to destroy, in whole or part a national ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
These are statements Mrs. Sanger made from suggestions for the Negro Project there were more people involved but I will quote her because you think her baby, Planned Parenthood, acts in the interests of the black community when they don’t. Mrs. Sanger wrote,,” The ministers work is always important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. In order for actions to constitute genocide we already know it must meet two or the elements phyical and mental. And it must have at least one of the five acts. In targeting the black population the act committed is mentioned in my 11:42 post they are b and c. The law goes on to explain genocial acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a groups existence. Read the Negro Project and see if this does not shed some light on the true motives of Planned Parenthood.
There is also the crime of genocide occuring in this instance it fits the definition of genocide if you read the definition. Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade none has been a substancially all-white schools. None have been at suburban middle class schools. All have been at a black, minority or ethnic schools.
Your question about the locating of clinics in the Appalachian mountains and other areas I would like to research thoroughly and give you a detailed answer. I’m assuming it’s because these individuals are economically challenged but I want to make sure I’m right about what she thought of the poor before I write it. God bless you Biggz.
Biggz
Didn’t have to do to much research. Just re-read an article I had already read. Her views on the poor are more than hateful. What she does though in convincing people of her own agenda is remove a lot of power that these citizens had over there own life. It worked out really well for her. When she preached(?) that giving to the poor was paternalistic in nature and had a dim view of capitalism it did not bother her to receive monies from the Rockerfeller family to pursue her own agenda. The sad part for me is that a lot of times economically disadvantaged people often do not have a clue who they are as citizens. And of course they are people who would rather see money in their own pocket than in the pockets of those they consider to be less than them. The United Nations convention on genocide actually wanted to add socio-economic groups as one of the groups in their defintion. Hopefully in the near future they will.
Providing medical and surgical abortion services that has been offered by the private office. Feel free to ask the queries related to the free abortions, free birth control pills and free gyn services. For more information visit our site http://ru486ishere.com/