Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. Abolish abortion!
Jul.02, 2011 9:42 am |
Political anti-life bias |
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Fabulous sign! Do we have permission to reuse it? Whoever designed it, kudos and thank you!
8 likes
This is a really sweet graphic. I like the retro look and how it’s slightly evocative of the KEEP CALM posters without looking a thing like them.
Are there actual posters of this we can put up?
6 likes
Let’s also not forget that Jew incineration made up only a very small percentage of all the services that the Nazis provided.
27 likes
The murder of the Jews by the Nazis had it not been checked, would have removed the Jews from the face of the earth. It came very close to removing the Jews from Europe. Yes they killed many more than the Jews (like the disabled – mentally and physically, political opostion, Religious leaders, Homo sexuals and races of people they deemed the untter mensch or none people) but the killing of the Jews was their main goal. Lets not also forget between Stalin and Hitler, Nazi Germany & Soviet Russia and then Red China more have been killed in the millions in the name of and with the power of Govt. . China today legally kills (I’d bet millions) of little girls each year. And who knows how many Political prisoners. Think about that when you buy Chinese made produts. And when the spenders in Washington want to take on more debt via the Chinese.
How many millions do we kill every year via abortion…? It needs to stop.
Abortion is an abomination and needs to be stopped.
19 likes
AMEN!!!!
4 likes
Bobby: an EXCELLENT response to the “3 percenters”!
I challenge every pro-lifer to counter the 3% manipulation with the truth: 98% of PP’s services to pregnant women = abortion.
The above graphic is compelling and well-done.
5 likes
I just realized the design above is really the letters A – H – A (Abolish Human Abortion)
The two red strikes make the letter H.
It also makes the inverted A – Abortion. Quite fitting.
Very intriguing logo – but not sure it would work any where else.
Great quote and excellent design.
2 likes
Lots of the abortion advocates that comment here like to hide behind the legality of abortion, as if making an atrocity legal somehow makes a difference about it’s moral worth.
14 likes
“Let’s also not forget that Jew incineration made up only a very small percentage of all the services that the Nazis provided”
Bobby, … yes. :)
http://www.lifedynamics.com/deathcamps/Holocaust3.cfm
3 likes
Slavery was legal, too. Racial Segregation was legal. Aparthied was law. Women have inferior rights under Shariah Law…. In every age (and especially in the modern age) people with power have succeeded in treating some people like they are less than human — legally, under the law.
11 likes
Sorry Denise, you will have to find another blog to publish that.
0 likes
To quote Jay Shepard, “Nothing is mine.” Anyone can use that flyer as they please.
There are some more here: http://abolishhumanabortion.blogspot.com/p/abolition-posters.html
1 likes
It is sickening to equate abortion with the holocaust. people were rounded up and told they were going to “work for their freedom” and we gassed in gas chambers and gassing vans. those that had an idea of what was going on and made any kind of stand or tried to alert other were murdered execution style. You people are SICK!
5 likes
Pixi, abortion IS a holocaust. It is the dehumanization of an entire class of humans, seen as disposable, and killed violently and gruesomely, then incinerated. Why does this offend you? The comparison is accurate and apt.
16 likes
Mary Lee – Read up about the horrors of the holocaust. I hardly think an non-sentient fetus is anywhere near a feeling, breathing human being. To equate the torture and horror they endured to removing an 8wk fetus through abortion is twisted thinking. Holocaust survivors are generally outraged by people undermining what they went through when it is compared to abortion.
5 likes
The comparison undermines holocaust victims only if an 8 week old fetus is not a human.
14 likes
Pixi,
“I hardly think a non sentient fetus is anywhere near a feeling, breathing human being”.
Replace “non-sentinet fetus” with Jews,gays, Slavics,Nazi opponents, the mentally and physically disabled, gypsies, and you will know exactly how the nazis viewed the millions that they destroyed in hospital gas chambers and death camps.
Don’t you understand Pixi that to “justify” mass killing and genocide we must start by dehumanizing the victims?
15 likes
Holocaust survivors are generally outraged by people undermining what they went through when it is compared to abortion.
Proof please.
8 likes
Pixi, I have two graduate degrees and I’m married to a pro-life Jewish man. An unborn person is still a person with the right to live. Watch an unborn baby fight for his life during an abortion. Yes, abortion IS a holocaust. You further proved my point with your “sentient human being” nonsense. Dehumanizing humans who don’t look the way you think they should look. Here’s a clue: The unborn don’t become persons, they ARE persons, performing and looking and behaving as all persons in that stage of life. Life is a continuum. You need to open your eyes; your ignorance is showing.
21 likes
I am glad that many of you like this poster. Feel free to use it in any way you like. The Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma has a slew of posters similar to it. Many are available at:http://abolishhumanabortion.blogspot.com/ Just click the posters tab.
Also, read the “What is the AHA symbol for?” page. It explains how the AHA (Abolish Human Abortion) symbol can be used by individuals out there just living life to identify themselves as abortion abolitionists.
Pixi, the poster doesn’t compare abortion to the holocaust per se. It points out the fact (or the fallacy) that a something’s being legal, doesn’t make it right. And reminds people that atrocious things have been carried out with the law of the land on their side. The Fugitive Slave act, the Dred Scott decision, Nazi eugenics, legal abortion-on-demand…
Jay Shepherd
Abortion Abolitionist, Member of the Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma
14 likes
Holocaust survivors are generally outraged by people undermining what they went through when it is compared to abortion.
Proof please.
From the ADL
“In a letter to Governor Huckabee, ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman said: “The Holocaust was a unique tragedy in human history – an attempt by the Nazis to exterminate the Jewish people that led to the deliberate murder of six million Jews. We find the use of analogies to the Holocaust in other contexts deeply painful, disturbing and offensive. Such analogies can only trivialize and diminish the horror, and cause further pain to Holocaust survivors and to those alive today who lost friends and loved ones”
Isn’t it interesting that the majority of American Jews are pro-choice.
4 likes
Oh, I guess that settles it then, CC. *eye roll*
There are pro-life Jews and pro-life atheists. The majority of atheists are pro-abortion. That speaks to ignorance, not facts, and it proves absolutely nothing.
8 likes
Isn’t it interesting that the majority of American Jews are pro-choice.
Why not say pro-abortion? Why mask the term?
Tell us again CC how abortion helps the Jews and Israel. Oh – wait, never mind – someone else has already done a much better job:
http://www.beadchaim.com/In-the-News?page=1
4 likes
Love it! Another grubby little maligning piece of propaganda which will cause people to shake their heads and cross the street to dodge the nutters.
2 likes
Here’s some more – watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAHttEv8LSk
3 likes
I do believe that there is a distinct difference between The Holocaust and a holocaust.
hol·o·caust/?häl??kôst/Noun
1. Destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, esp. caused by fire or nuclear war: “a nuclear holocaust”
Abortion is a holocaust.
16 likes
Feministia Missy Mara Hvistendahl estimates in the last 30 years One Hundred and Sixty Three Million female pre-natal children have been aborted.
That is more than all the humans that have been killed in wars, plagues, famines and natural disasters…. COMBINED in the course of recorded human history.
And comparing this ‘gendercide’ to the genocide of serveral million Jews ‘trivializes the holocaust?
There is a documented and verifiable gender imbalance in the population of the planet.
But it is OK with the feministas and the ‘dead babies r us’ mob cause in their alternate reality they never even really existed in the first place.
If that is the case, then how can the earth’s population be short over 160,000,000 million females.
Were they swallowed up in the black hole of mother Gaia’s womb while no one was watching?
I don’t give a rip how many artificial flowers are offended when we compare the handiwork of the humanazis to their predecessors, the aryan butchers of the Third Reich.
The very fact that some the humanistas are offended is more evidence that the hit dog has howled.
8 likes
I don’t give a rip how many artificial flowers are offended when we compare the handiwork of the humanazis to their predecessors, the aryan butchers of the Third Reich.
I would like to second this!
And is there not evidence that modern “liberalism” has it’s roots in the Nazi Socialist movement especially with their embrace of eugenics?
4 likes
Holocaust survivors are generally outraged by people undermining what they went through when it is compared to abortion.
CC, The claim was that Holocaust survivors are outraged. Show me the list of Holocaust survivors that are outraged. Names and statements by outraged survivors.
6 likes
Carla @ 6:45…
Great point! Some reports show well over one billion abortions in the last 30 years. That certainly is a holocaust.
6 likes
Feministia Missy Mara Hvistendahl estimates in the last 30 years One Hundred and Sixty Three Million female pre-natal children have been aborted.
And these are “only” those aborted because they were female.
4 likes
Denise Noe,
Consider this a warning. If you ever post anything like that again, you will be banned.
0 likes
Updated poster: JUST BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL DOESNT MEAN ITS RIGHT.
Visit: http://abolishhumanabortion.blogspot.com/2011/07/remember-dred-abolish-roe.html
Abolish HUMAN Abortion
4 likes
“And is there not evidence that modern “liberalism” has it’s roots in the Nazi Socialist movement especially with their embrace of eugenics?”
Why don’t you try learning a little bit about what a “modern liberal” is before vomiting the Glenn Beck version?
Here’s a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States
2 likes
Awesome message. Awesome graphics. Awesome parallel.
Abortion is the world’s new holocaust. The victims of this global onslaught have no voice save for pro-lifers – making it that much more critical that the realities of abortion are shouted out from the rooftops of every city, every state, every nation – until abortion stops once and for all.
Abortion is a war on the pre-born. Get used to us using any and all tactics to spread the truth.
Reproductive rights = abortion rights
Pro-choice = Pro-abortion
Abortion = Murder
5 likes
mp,
Interesting article. Let’s see “progessives” such as Woodrow Wilson, a virulent racist who spread Jim Crow laws to the federal level. Franklin Roosevelt, who ordered American citizens put into concentration camps. He also refused admission to the US of German Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany seeking safety in the US. After their forced return to Europe, most would end up dying in death camps. Lyndon Johnson, who referred to the 1957 Civil Rights Act as the “G–D—Nigra Bill”. Let’s not also forget the colossol failure of Johnson’s Great Society.
Quite a collection there mp.
2 likes
“Quite a collection there mp.”
Obviously, there is no middle ground here. As for the “colossol [sic] failure” of The Great Society, that is a simply preposterous statement unless, of course, you’re saying the Civil Rights Act was also a failure. That was, as you SHOULD KNOW, one of the The Great Society’s main achievements.
I could name other pieces of landmark legislation, but it doesn’t matter here, even though all of you here benefited from them AND EMBRACE THEM AS YOUR OWN.
I’m going to end with a piece of free advice. If you keep pounding The Holocaust, if you keep pounding Nazism, the mainstream–the broad consensus–will eventually come to the conclusion that you–just like Glenn Beck– have “gone off the reservation.”
You will be marginalized.
3 likes
mp,
The Civil Rights Act was passed with the help of Republicans, as Democrats were too busy filibustering. Swallow a lot of bile mp and thank Republicans for civil rights. Lyndon Johnson would have never passed it without their help. Actually this bill began in the Kennedy Administration, though Kennedy, another of your enlightened progressives, opposed the 1957 Civil Rights Act to keep in the good graces of the Democrat hierarchy, as he planned to run for president in 1960.
37 million Americans in poverty in 2004. Yeah, mp, a huge success.
As for no “middle ground” I was only referring to your source and the people named in it!
3 likes
mp – we will be marginalized? America is in the midst of a holocaust the likes of which the modern world has never seen. It matters not whether it is compared to the holocaust brought by the Third Reich or to Civil Rights…
Human beings are being killed by abortion – that is it in a nutshell –
Marginalize me – mp – you will never define me – nor do you have the authority to do so.
4 likes
Abortion advocates seem to overlook the fact that many, many fetuses and born babies died in the Holocaust. In fact, as far as I know, disabled babies were the very first group targeted for mass murder. Nazi ideology justified this by pointing out the babies were non-conscious and therefore did not count. So, pro-aborts, did those victims count even though they mostly died painlessly and without any fear? Also, is that not how the killing of fetuses is justified?
After all, Pixi tells us that it is offensive to compare abortion to the Holocaust because “people were rounded up and told they were going to ‘work for their freedom’ and we gassed in gas chambers and gassing vans. those that had an idea of what was going on and made any kind of stand or tried to alert other were murdered execution style.” But the babies I mentioned (and many other victims) did not experience any of that. Do they “count”? If so, why bring up the examples in the quote to explain why the Holocaust is different than abortion?
4 likes
I’m going to end with a piece of free advice. If you keep pounding The Holocaust, if you keep pounding Nazism, the mainstream–the broad consensus–will eventually come to the conclusion that you–just like Glenn Beck– have “gone off the reservation.”
I don’t think we need any advice from anyone who believes that it’s okay to kill human life in the womb. We’ don’t make noise because we care about what anyone thinks of us. We make noise because it’s SICK that babes in the womb are slaughtered every day. THAT is “going off the reservation.”
8 likes
“I don’t think we need any advice from anyone who believes that it’s okay to kill human life in the womb.”
Really? Where did I say that?
As I said before, it’s unfortunate. Folks like me have no where to go.
2 likes
mp,
Thanks for the link, but I hope that you least attempt to see what modern Leftism is all about and where it came from. Check out Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning for a good look at this subject.
3 likes
“Marginalize me – mp – you will never define me – nor do you have the authority to do so.”
You’ve done a job on me. You don’t even know what my views on abortion are.
You didn’t even bother to ask.
4 likes
All of the marginalization from the beginning of time till now would be worth it to save even one baby from such a horrible, tortuous, painful death.
We can take it. Victory has already been given to us.
I hope you weren’t trying to trivialize Native Americans with the “reservation” quote. Would you feel better if we drew an abortion parallel to stealing the Native American’s land to stealing a pre-born baby’s life? We could always give the Native American’s their land back – but we can’t get back the 53 million lives abortion has taken.
We will keep pounding the war drum until abortion ends – at whatever cost. Pfft. Marginalized. You have no idea what you are up against.
5 likes
“You have no idea what you are up against. ”
I’m going to repeat this for your benefit:
You don’t know what my views are. You never asked.
3 likes
mp~ I apologize if I wrongly assumed otherwise. However, your “concern” for pro-lifers to be marginalized and your inability to see the connection of the holocaust of the unborn who are grotesquely tortured and killed in their mother’s womb and then to worry what people think of those fired up over that…well…I guess that seemed bizarre to me.
2 likes
mp – you distanced yourself from ‘us’ by using the word ‘you’ four times in your last two paragraphs.
You are a pro-abort.
4 likes
You don’t know what my views are. You never asked
With your defense of “modern liberalism” I think it is rational to assume that you support abortion-on-demand which is, of course, the religion of the American Left, but it would be great to hear if you are one who does not.
4 likes
“With your defense of “modern liberalism” I think it is rational to assume that you support abortion-on-demand which is, of course, the religion of the American Left,…”
In your construction, a liberal is a leftist and that is false.
As I said, I have no where to go.
Goodbye.
“You are a pro-abort. ”
And you are a fool.
Goodbye.
4 likes
mp – no matter what your views are – you, nor any human will define me. The only authority I have is God – no mere mortal.
mp – are you pro-life or pro-death?
2 likes
okay – I will bite – mp – why do you have no where to go?
0 likes
Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. Looks like a duck.
Probably a pro-abort monotreme. Don’t let the door hit you in the tail-feathers.
You got one thing right, though. I am a fool for Jesus Christ.
4 likes
You don’t know what my views are. You never asked.
Why should we? Most people are comfortable enough with their POV to just make it known. I question a pro-abort who is not comfortable in their position to state so. I question the motive of a pro-lifer who plays games with “guess my views.”
5 likes
In your construction, a liberal is a leftist and that is false.
Yes, I often conflate the two because there is no doubt that most modern leftists call themselves liberal. However, I admit that you are correct in that “Liberal” in the classic sense has little similarity to leftists today. I would say that abolitionists and feminists of the 19th century were “Classic Liberals” in that they were progressive and believed in human dignity above all else. Unfortunately, with your refusing to to see the parallels of abortion and the holocaust I seriously doubt that your thinking falls along those lines.
2 likes
You will be marginalized.
What is your way? Are you a part of the Borg Collective? “You will be assimilated!”
No thanks. If all be against us, we will stand fast for life.
3 likes
One of the main reasons for our high abortion rate is that so many females become pregnant out of wedlock. One of the main reasons for this is that people marry much later in life than they used to. The ideal of the female being a virgin on her wedding night is far easier to make a reality if people marry at relatively young ages.
Should we work to encourage people to marry younger than is typical for contemporary Americans?
If so, how can we make this practicable?
1 likes
“Unfortunately, with your refusing to to see the parallels of abortion and the holocaust I seriously doubt that your thinking falls along those lines.”
There are no parallels to see. None whatsoever. The Holocaust was a clandestine, carefully crafted, government-sponsored act of targeted mass murder by a lawless regime that acted in contravention of the laws of every country it operated it. Even if you accept the premise that abortion is an act of murder (in a moral, if not legal, sense), it’s still not comparable, because the government is not compelling it, but simply failing to prevent it. It would be like comparing the government’s failure to forcibly seize every privately-owned gun in the United States with the Holocaust, because those privately-owned guns have, collectively, been used to murder millions of people. Obviously many people would be offended if a group that promotes gun control, for example, would start comparing gun ownership to the Holocaust, and for the same reasons as many people are offended by comparing abortion to the Holocaust. It flippantly disregards the sacred nature of the Holocaust by attempting to cheaply exploit the visceral emotional reaction most people have towards it for political gain.
4 likes
Joan,
I, the maker of the poster above, am not seeking any political gain, and did not compare the Holocaust to the the Abortion genocide merely to exploit a visceral emotional reaction. I was pointing out the very real historical truth that grave injustices towards humanity have been carried out under the guise of a good cause with the protection of lawful governing bodies. The comparison is more so between the Nazi’s and people like yourself; that is, people who think that atrocious inhuman acts of violence carried out against other people are justified because they are legal, and apparrently good for society, or various individuals in society, etc etc.
This is not a cheap exploitation, it is a poignant reminder.
Jay Shepherd
Abolitionist
5 likes
Hello, Denise Noe…. I’m very glad that you chose to stick around.
“One of the main reasons for our high abortion rate is that so many females become pregnant out of wedlock.”
The “main reason” for our high abortion rate is that so many women have sex with men they would never marry, and women are having sex without any desire for marriage or children. They use contraception, expecting to be “safe.” So when they discover that they are pregnant, it is a crisis.
Should we work to encourage people to marry younger than is typical for contemporary Americans?
If so, how can we make this practicable?
This should not be our goal. Our long-term goal is to remind our culture that marriage and children are very good. Most of our happiness comes from our family lives, you know. Humanity knows this; but we have forgotten.
When our culture appreciates family and marriage and children again, emotionally healthy young people will naturally desire to marry early.
In the short term, we work to restore respect for life, and to protect the women and children who are at risk of exploitation and death.
4 likes
Joan:
Abortion combines the injustice of all genocides with the injustice of slavery.
All genocides, including the Nazi’s Holocaust, dehumanize a portion of the population and lead to mass killings. In America, abortion killing is “legal” and protected by our government. In China, abortion killing is “legal” and enforced by the government. The parallel is clear; it is not relevant that many Americans desire abortion the way that many Nazis desired their Final Solution.
Slavery in America was even more like abortion in America. No one was forced to own a slave, and everyone was free to own a slave. Owning a slave was a “very personal moral decision.” If you don’t like slavery, don’t own one.
This lie works, as long as no one insists that every person is entitled to her life and freedom…. even if a white person wants to own her or her mother wants to kill her. Even if the owning or the killing is “legal.”
5 likes
Denise Noe – please cite your sources. Women who get abortions run the gamete of married, divorced, separated and yes, single. Women abort due to fetal abnormalities, fear, shame, coercion or because they are convinced that it is okay because the government has determined it is legal.
Being single and pregnant is no longer a stigma. Social norms have changed to embrace women who are not married and yet pregnant.
1 likes
Del says:
July 4, 2011 at 11:31 am
Hello, Denise Noe…. I’m very glad that you chose to stick around.
“One of the main reasons for our high abortion rate is that so many females become pregnant out of wedlock.”
The “main reason” for our high abortion rate is that so many women have sex with men they would never marry, and women are having sex without any desire for marriage or children. They use contraception, expecting to be “safe.” So when they discover that they are pregnant, it is a crisis.
Should we work to encourage people to marry younger than is typical for contemporary Americans?If so, how can we make this practicable?
This should not be our goal. Our long-term goal is to remind our culture that marriage and children are very good. Most of our happiness comes from our family lives, you know. Humanity knows this; but we have forgotten.
When our culture appreciates family and marriage and children again, emotionally healthy young people will naturally desire to marry early.
(Denise) It used to be practical for people to marry early because it was practical for people — or at least men — to make an adequate living for three or more people when they were young. Young men often took work such as heavy factory labor that did not require extensive training or education but could support themselves, wives, and children. These days, a great deal of education is needed to have a job paying adequately for even one person. People of both sexes require college educations that aren’t completed until their mid-20s and leave them deeply in debt.
Thus, marriage is delayed and more pregnancies are to single females.
Again, to have more births within marriage we have to reverse the trend of requiring people to be in their mid-20s before anyone can earn enough to support a family.
3 likes
Abortion has comparable attributes to the Holocaust for two very important reasons (besides which, all you got to do is pick up a dictionary and look up the word “holocaust”):
1. It’s the extermination of human life. (I know, I know, the pro-choicers/pro-aborts do NOT think the pre-born human being is a life, but if it’s not a human life, then what, tell me, is it? I was NOT pregnant with a kitten, dog, or inanimate object. I was pregnant with a human life. Not a potential life…a LIFE).
2. It’s legal. During the Nazi Regime killing off the Jews (and many others they killed off) was LEGAL in Germany, and they sought to enforce that set of beliefs on the entire world to make what they were doing legal around the world, not just in Germany. They didn’t consider the people they were exterminating human life–or even worthy of being called human life. it was something else, but it wasn’t human. I see that SAME idea among the pro-choice/pro-aborts—the pre-born human being isn’t really a life in the pro-choice mind, it’s something else, but it’s not a life.
Potential for life is this: when a man and a woman have sexual intercourse there’s a POTENTIAL that a new life will be conceived. THAT’S when it’s a POTENTIAL life. When a new human being has been conceived (that is egg plus sperm and the development BEGINS) that’s when the potential is removed and human life becomes a reality because conception has taken place.
A human being developing inside the mother’s womb does NOT make said being less human or less alive. To say otherwise doesn’t make any sense.
Do we call children or teenagers less human just because they aren’t adults? Just because they may not look, think, act or be the same as an adult? We don’t think of them outside of the womb any less human–despite the fact they are STILL developing. Developing human beings doesn’t make them less human. Human development continues outside the womb. Location makes NO difference. A human being is a human being. We’re never anything else BUT human to say otherwise diminishes that human being’s dignity.
4 likes
Women who get abortions run the gamete of married, divorced, separated and yes, single.
@Lee: While gametes do frequently come up in pro-life debates, I think the word you want there is gamut. ;)
4 likes
These days, a great deal of education is needed to have a job paying adequately for even one person. People of both sexes require college educations that aren’t completed until their mid-20s and leave them deeply in debt.
Baloney. Your generation has been made to believe that everyone is required to have a college education. And must have a three car garage, flat screen tv, numerous new vehicles, name-brand clothing, etc., etc. before they start a family. Babies don’t need that much to thrive and neither do you.
6 likes
Thanks MIT and Del for your post. Great posters BTW, Jay Shepard.
3 likes
Robert, your ramblings are inane and unfounded. While I wish that I could spend a portion of this day dissecting your muddled thoughts and exploring the many ways in which they essentially undercut all moral legislation of all types (making murder illegal is like throwing gasoline on a fir…wut?) I do not think it is worth my time. Were we to be living in the same town, I would gladly throw my fourth of July away to sit down in a coffee shop and debate you on the abolition of abortion.
Since that is not an option, I would ask you to just debate yourself. Think through your rant a little bit and try not to, as you say, vomit.
For instance, consider your first line, and relate it to the fact that the quote on the poster is taken from a statement that Martin Luther King Jr. made. Was King being “idiotic, grossly unfair, monumentaly dihonest intellectually, ” and “absolutely disgusting”? As for your second sentence/claim, that Abortion is “not a government-ordered plan to exterminate any single group of people” like the Nazi eugenic programs… go check out Maffa 21, and get back to us on that one.
JS
And, what are your thoughts about this similar poster? http://abolishhumanabortion.blogspot.com/2011/07/remember-dred-abolish-roe.html
Is it similarly invalid. You can leave a rant at that site as well.
1 likes
A woman gets raped. She ends up pregnant. Abortion still wrong?
2 likes
“Someone with sense”….please. As a pro-life rape survivor, I would suggest you not use an instance which makes up less than 1% of all abortions. To be sure, the likelihood of pregnancy after rape is minimal. However, there have been rape survivors who did become pregnant and knew that killing the baby would not be just. Because I have been through a rape, I can say no woman is going to be thinking straight after such a trauma. The fact is 99% of abortions are of healthy babies with healthy mothers. There should be NO abortion-on-demand, ever. And your argument is an old one. Nobody wants to punish women who have been raped; we want to prevent baby people from getting dismembered. Why is that so difficult for the pro-abortion mind to grasp?
Abortion is either always wrong or never wrong. A pregnancy caused by a rape is a tragedy; to many pro-lifers, abortion only compounds the tragedy. I understand how a woman would be inclined to abort after rape, but it is so unlikely, that using this as an example of “choice” is intellectually and emotionally manipulative. Try again. Use some actual sense next time.
8 likes
Abortion still wrong?
Abortion can never be less wrong because we realize other crimes exist.
2 likes
someone with sense says:
A woman gets raped. She ends up pregnant. Abortion still wrong?
**************************************************************
Are humans conceived in rape less human than those conceived in consensual sex?
Was the slave conceived in rape by the master any less deserving of freedom than the slave conceived in consensual sex?
Here’s some info from women who became pregnant through sexual assault:
http://afterabortion.org/2004/women-whove-been-pregnant-through-sexual-assault-plead-for-public-hearings/
6 likes
You just don’t get it.Abortion is not stoppable.There is absolutely no way to do this. Women will always find a way to have them,and if there are no doctors available, the will seek out people who are not medically trained,or try to abort themselves.
Everything I said is true. Trying to stop abortion is absolutely futile.The only thing that can be done is to eliminate the kind of conditions in society which drive women to seek and obtain them. This is why the abortion rate in Europe is so low comapred to the rest of the world, where aborton is especially rampant where it is illegal. There is far less poverty in Europe, and a secure safety net for all people. That’s why abortion is so rare there. In order to reduce abortion greatly, America will have to become more like Europe.But conservatives don’t want that, because they think Europe is full of socialist tyranny.It isn’t
If abortion ever becomes illegal again in America,it won’t end.It will just become much more dangerous. How many abortions were prosecuted before Roe v Wade compared tot he millions which took place before it? You can practically count them on your fingers.
5 likes
someone with sense says:
July 4, 2011 at 5:13 pm
A woman gets raped. She ends up pregnant. Abortion still wrong?
A woman I know who was raped (more than once–that is, when the rape happened she was raped repeatedly during that time). She got pregnant, got in contact with a good adoption agency, put the baby up for adoption and went on to lead a very fully and beautiful life.
Rape doesn’t mean a person’s life ends as this woman proved. It’s a HORRIBLE thing to have happen–I’m not denying that one iota, but it doesn’t mean she has to have an abortion. It doesn’t mean her life is over. And it doesn’t mean she can’t grow in spite of it.
3 likes
Robert Berger says:
July 4, 2011 at 7:18 pm
You just don’t get it.Abortion is not stoppable.There is absolutely no way to do this. Women will always find a way to have them,and if there are no doctors available, the will seek out people who are not medically trained,or try to abort themselves.
Everything I said is true. Trying to stop abortion is absolutely futile.
You know the Nazis thought they were unstoppable, too. That is, until they WERE stopped. Abortion is only unstoppable if people keep believing it is. What we need to do is get to the root of why women have abortions in the first place and deal with those issues rather than saying “Go have an abortion and that’ll take care of it.” Which essentially is the message.
The only thing that can be done is to eliminate the kind of conditions in society which drive women to seek and obtain them. This is why the abortion rate in Europe is so low comapred to the rest of the world, where aborton is especially rampant where it is illegal.
Oh I don’t know. It’s legal in the USA and it still seems pretty rampant, so I don’t think legality is necessarily the determining factor.
There is far less poverty in Europe, and a secure safety net for all people. That’s why abortion is so rare there. In order to reduce abortion greatly, America will have to become more like Europe.But conservatives don’t want that, because they think Europe is full of socialist tyranny.It isn’t
Well, tell that to my friend in the UK who says their National Healthcare is a HUGE mistake and the USA Does NOT want that (although Obama sure has worked to put his healthcare plan into action). He works in the healthcare industry and says it’s horrible. So I don’t think Europe necessarily is the utopian society you make it out to be.
If abortion ever becomes illegal again in America,it won’t end.It will just become much more dangerous. How many abortions were prosecuted before Roe v Wade compared tot he millions which took place before it? You can practically count them on your fingers.
Robert, you’re making a lot of claims on here and you haven’t provided one source to back up any of them.
Provide ACCURATE sources (I don’t consider Guttmacher or Planned Parenthood particularly accurate, either, just FYI).
0 likes
@Robert Berger: Repeating the same debunked claims over and over without even trying to support any of them will never make them true. It’s just annoying. Change the record already.
1 likes
Mr. Berger, crime, in general, will never cease. Abortion is a crime. That doesn’t mean we don’t do whatever we can to try and stop it. Whether or not it is “unstoppable,” it is, most importantly, PREVENTABLE. And the “unstoppability” (as it were) does not mean that it will ever be right or just or good. People will lie, cheat, steal, kill, rape, murder…..should we make these legal, too?
3 likes
I believe that much of Western Europe has more restrictive abortion laws than we have and that may account for their lower abortion rate.
2 likes
Just because something is difficult or seems impossible, does not mean that one should not try. If there is an injustice – should we try to right the wrongs, or throw up our hands and give up? Bravery and courage, even in the face of long odds makes us rise to the levels of heroic virtue – to give, to love, to help and to hope heroically. It it the stuff legends and everyday folk are made of.
when the U.S. had 9/11 – did not a whole people band together to pray? Help? unlock our hearts and try to make sense of the un-sensible? Yes – it was not a permanent change – but one that most thought was impossible.
what about helping the poor? Marginalized? Disenfranchised? Impossible – maybe – but people still try. eliminate hunger? people say it’s impossible, but we still try.
Abortion is no different.
Abortion is a human rights’ violation. The purposeful taking of another human’s life. Done with the sanction of the government. Should we stand by while it keeps on going? No. Look the other way while more children die and their mom’s lives changed forever? No.
It is up to everyone to try to help – in any moral way possible. Love big. And truly loving does not include abortion.
3 likes
Lately, I have been reading feminist blogs and they keep making the point that it makes no sense to try to ban sex selection abortions in India because the practice has been illegal since 1994 and it has made no difference. But, what they do not understand is that because of India’s poor regulatory structure (and corruption) they admittedly do not make any real effort to enforce the law. Of course, when I try to point this out they do not want to hear it. Rather they would just like to keep screaming about how banning abortion (or even restricting it) won’t work.
1 likes
Most of Europe seems to have tighter controls than the US after the first trimester:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm
Also, as an aside I know that many European countries have banned PGD because of because of the ethical concerns. This tells me that in Europe, at least, they understand the need for responsible government intervention so that the reproductive and abortion industry don’t run with reckless abandon like they do in the US.
0 likes
Here is some GREAT news! Perhaps the rest of Europe will follow suit?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j1wL_vPlePEn1MHVAiX7iYgwAOTw?docId=CNG.1944a16bd1a606916947fdc5b2762bf9.751
0 likes
Just for the record: The Nazi death camps had “clinics” that did nothing but kill the preborn children of prisoners, especially Jewish ones, 24/7. No “freedom of choice” there for the mothers anymore than for their children…who were as sentient, if not as developed, as their parents, older siblings, etc.
Oh and you do remember Dr. Josef Mengele, don’t you? Seems that after the war, Mengele decided to take a trip out of the country in order to avoid standing trial for his crimes against humanity of all ages and stages. He ended up in South America, where he supported himself by doing abortions until his own death. Seems, as someone has said, thet you can get the doctor (and I use the term very loosely) out of the death camp, but you can’t get the death camp out of the doctor.
Gotta love that word “marginalize”; it’s exactly what the Nazi regime did to groups of people they didn’t like. They were first demonized, then marginalized, then dehumanized – often with disease metaphors; a “cancer” on the body of German society, etc., much like unborn children are called “parasites”, “stds”, compared to tumors, ad nauseam- then, like chattel, they were “relocated”, which generally involved government robbery of all their belongings, then they were herded like sheep into the death camps, where they were worked, starved, or experimented on to death, after which their bodies were plundered some more for skin, hair, the fillings in their teeth, and the list goes on. It’s not so very different with the unborn; they are dehumanized, referenced in hateful, negative terms so as to make their killing seem legitimate (after all, what sane, decent person wants an innocent baby slaughtered? on the other hand, what sane, decent person does not want a “disease” eradicated?) After they are relocated to a death mill, they are killed; and there is a huge black market, I understand, for body parts. At least it’s black in this country; in parts of china, they are actually packaged and sold as food. The Nazis really liked tattooed skins; they made such interesting lamp shades. Then there were shrunken heads used as paper weights, rugs made of hair…Mengele was quite proud, and fond, of his collection of kidney stones…so very resourceful, these ghouls.
The lies told to prisoners by the Nazis to get them into the showers of the gas chambers weren’t, in essence, so very different from the lies that are told to women in order to get them and their babies into the stirrups of the death mills; they were made to feel safe, that what was going to happen to them was a good thing. They were going to get a nice, refreshing, delousing shower. They just weren’t told that they were the lice whose riddance would refresh the Nazis…kind of left that little part out…
Oh, but all this was made much easier by first taking from them their firearms; yes, Hitler, like all similar tyrannies, had a strict gun control policy that somehow ensured that his targets did not have guns, but his brownshirts did. So, they were first rendered defenseless. Now, the unborn are defenseless by reason of their stage of development; that is why God created wombs, maternal (and paternal) instincts to protect them until they are big and strong and intelligent enough to protect themselves…and their children. Uh oh. Ah, yes; let us remove these defenses by teaching mothers to regard children as threats – to anything; freedom, a size 6 figure, education, health, wealth, whatever – and to regard the child in the womb as “just a clump of cells”, an insentient blob of tissue, a parasite, a tumor, a burden…and presto, it’s open season on the targeted people group. Of course, none of those formalities were necessary in the abortion mills of Auschwitz, Dachau, etc., though they may have been told that some other procedure such as a screening for cancer or some other disease was what they were going in for.
Here’s the thing; the Nazi holocaust, hard as its perpetrators tried to keep it clandestine, didn’t stay that way very long. Those pesky Allies crashed their party, and took pictures of their handiwork, and sent these all over the world. Major PR problem for the eugenics/population control crowd. So they reinvented themselves as -tada, tada - “Family Planning”.
You can view documentation of this for yourself; the movie Maafa 21 contains lots of it, and can b viewed in its entirety, though in segments, on Youtube.
4 likes
“I hardly think a non sentient fetus is anywhere near a feeling, breathing human being”
How much more sentient are human neonates compared to a fetus? Does an unwanted neonate killed by being drowned in a bathtub suffer as much as an older holocaust victim being held in a concentration camp and then gassed to death? I’d assume due to lower cognitive functioning, they would not. However, does that mean that killing newborn babies could be okay? After all, they are not even capable of caring whether they live or die anymore than a cockroach is. If adopted out they could end up as “burdens” for other people, grow up miserable in foster care, or might even grow up poor. And we all know the possibility of growing up in poverty is worse than death.
It seems a lot of the reasoning for allowing abortions can be used to allow the killing of born children as well. :(
I’ve always wondered if, say, a plane crashes on an island and the survivors are three men and a woman with a newborn baby. The mother decides she doesn’t like being a mother and decides that the infant no longer has permission to nurse from her breasts, since it is “her body, her choice.” They could be stranded for who knows how long, and she doesn’t want to bother taking care of this non-sapient, crying, pooping machine, even if they find enough food to live comfortably until rescued. There is no baby formula, so the men can do nothing to help feed the baby. So the woman abandons the baby on the beach and lets it die. Is what she did morally wrong? Should she have been “forced” to allow this organism to suckle her breasts against her will?
3 likes
Oops…I meant to include gassing and shooting as other ways prisoners died at Nazi hands, though the gassing is mentioned, and shooting is known to anyone who acknowledges that the Nazi holocaust did, in fact, take place. The eugenic holocaust, of which the Nazi holocaust was only a chapter, and a relatively brief one at that, is still ongoing, and killing the unborn is a big part of it, though not the whole of it.
Also in the list of things done to targeted victim groups of both the Nazi holocaust and its ongoing sequel, the abortion holocaust, especially in America, I meant to include scapegoating; perhaps the key dynamic. Hitler put all the blame, shame, guilt for the problems of the world, starting with Germanhy, on “der Jude”; he also projected his own wickedness onto them; it’s a common practice among narcissists/megalomaniacs – and he was nothing if not both of those things, on steroids. I think it is also fair to say that the unborn are scapegoated, blamed for all sorts of things; world hunger, abuse of born children, inner city crime, the deaths of women who abort without government sanction (it did happen, because killing an unborn child is inherently dangerous to the mother, though not on the scale claimed by proaborts), etc., etc…so that we’ve been told, ad nauseam, is that the way to get rid of these problems is to kill off the unborn. This is how scapegoating works; first the sins of a person or group of people are projected, placed on the head of the scapegoat; then this representation of guilt is gotten rid of – relocated, as though getting rid of the scapegoat will take away the sins tranferred to it. It won’t, of course, repentance does that; but narcissists rarely if ever bother with repentance since the whole point of their scapegoating is to avoid repentance, or even acknowledging their own evils and dealing with them.
3 likes
“A woman gets raped. She ends up pregnant. Abortion still wrong? ”
Yes. Abortion is not wrong because “women bring it on themselves by deciding to have sex” despite what the popular straw man claims. Abortion is wrong because it is the direct killing of an innocent human being.
3 likes
That is an excellent question, Sammich.
0 likes
Thank you for this, jtm
The lies told to prisoners by the Nazis to get them into the showers of the gas chambers weren’t, in essence, so very different from the lies that are told to women in order to get them and their babies into the stirrups of the death mills; they were made to feel safe, that what was going to happen to them was a good thing. They were going to get a nice, refreshing, delousing shower. They just weren’t told that they were the lice whose riddance would refresh the Nazis…kind of left that little part out…
3 likes
mp,
At the risk of taking away your “conversational coy card” let me ask you clearly, then:
1) Are you abortion-tolerant (i.e. do you think abortion should remain legal in some or all circumstances), or are you not?
2) Do you think that a direct, willed and procured abortion (as opposed to miscarriages, emergency c-sections of children in ectopic pregnancies, etc.) is morally wrong, or do you not?
3) Do you think that an unborn child is a person with a right to life comparable to that of any other innocent, non-aggressor person, or do you not?
It’s time for you to commit yourself, friend, rather than heaving rocks from hiding places at passers-by.
0 likes
Denise,
You said: “Should we work to encourage people to marry younger than is typical for contemporary Americans?If so, how can we make this practicable?” And then “(Denise) It used to be practical for people to marry early because it was practical for people — or at least men — to make an adequate living for three or more people when they were young. Young men often took work such as heavy factory labor that did not require extensive training or education but could support themselves, wives, and children. These days, a great deal of education is needed to have a job paying adequately for even one person. People of both sexes require college educations that aren’t completed until their mid-20s and leave them deeply in debt.
Thus, marriage is delayed and more pregnancies are to single females.Again, to have more births within marriage we have to reverse the trend of requiring people to be in their mid-20s before anyone can earn enough to support a family.”
This actually does not have to be the case. That’s the way society is set up, but there are plenty of people, who, when motivated, can break that system. I am. Several of my friends are breaking that as well. Believe it or not, people do not absolutely have to be in school until they are in their mid-twenties and they do not have to be enslaved to debt in order to be successful. It’s not easy, but it is possible to be free from that mold that society has dictated. If people want to do the right thing, it is entirely possible to get married young and still be successful and be promiscuous before marriage.
1 likes
Pixi, I have two graduate degrees and I’m married to a pro-life Jewish man. An unborn person is still a person with the right to live.
My ex-husband (we’re still friends) is a Jewish pro-life Buddhist.
Don’t forget that one of the most eloquent defenders of life in the country — Nat Hentoff — describes himself as a stiff-necked Jewish atheist.”
0 likes
But, what they do not understand is that because of India’s poor regulatory structure (and corruption) they admittedly do not make any real effort to enforce the law. Of course, when I try to point this out they do not want to hear it.
Denise, you have a point, but there is also huge cultural pressure at work – the desire for male children or at least for the first child to be male (or for a male after a female has been born, etc.). It’s true not only in India but in quite a few countries.
As for the Nazis and Hitler, it’s true that they wanted abortions for many pregnancies, as a rule. They’d have been more pro-life if they’d have been more pro-choice.
9 likes
Phillymiss, I love Nat Hentoff! I also love Vasu Murti. That is all. I am recovering from a stomach bug. My eloquence is sleeping. Lol
0 likes
Denise, you have a point, but there is also huge cultural pressure at work – the desire for male children or at least for the first child to be male (or for a male after a female has been born, etc.). It’s true not only in India but in quite a few countries.
I don’t understand your point. The government of India does not make a real attempt to enforce it’s own law. Allowing this practice to be cheap and easy just makes it more rampant. They have to take a serious stand against it and most certainly not condone it.
1 likes
Denise, I do agree that the imbalance in the sexes that the preference for male children is causing is a bad thing.
Yet even if India did “make a real attempt” to enforce the law, there are still large forces that would make for a lot of sex-selection. You had said that when you point out the lack of enforcement, pro-choicers don’t want to hear it. I agree with you there – more enforcement would obviously make a difference – I’m just saying that by no means would it make *all* the difference.
5 likes
I agree with you there – more enforcement would obviously make a difference – I’m just saying that by no means would it make *all* the difference.
No, it would not make *all* the difference, BUT it would make a significant difference. Strict enforcement is a much needed first step in curtailing the problem.
0 likes
None of my claims has ever been :”debunked” and you can look find out their truth right on the internet. It’s disgusting to compare abortion to the Nazis. The Nazis were an organized group trying to wipe out Jews and other undesirables. Abrtionis not an organi9zed plot. It is an individula tragedy for women. It has always existed and always will.
Planned Parenthood does not round up pregnant women and force them to have abortions. It would hnot perform so many abortions if there were less poverty in America. No, the lower abortion rate in Europe is NOT due to more restrictive laws, but to the fact that there is far less poverty there, and women have easy access to contraception, and children are not likey to e born into abject poverty,malnutrition,and lack of education and opportunity.
To call the tragically high aborton rate among poor black women some racist plot to exterminate blacks in America is idiotic. There is no such thing, and never has been. This is one of the countless lies about PP which have been spread, by the anti-choice movement.Anti-choicers have made the asinine claim that Margaret Sanger fought for reproductive choice becase she”hated large families” ,but this is idiotic. She herself grew up desperately poor in a very large family, and knew how horrible it is when women bear large numbers of children who grow up in abject poverty.
She wasn’t opposed to large families per se, only to FORCING poor women to have them.,which guarantees terrible misfortune.not only for the families, but society as a whole.
4 likes
“Love it! Another grubby little maligning piece of propaganda which will cause people to shake their heads and cross the street to dodge the nutters”
Yes, Reality, it raises the white flag of surrender as it swallows the poison pill of Godwin’s Law at the outset. Marginalization indeed.
4 likes
She wasn’t opposed to large families per se, only to FORCING poor women to have them.,which guarantees terrible misfortune.not only for the families, but society as a whole.
A baby in utero is capable of growing naturally. No force is necessary. Suppose you are right, how poor does one have to be to be deemed terribly misfortunate? Is forced abortion for the poor OK with you (for the sake of society as a whole?)? Should the father have a say in determining his child’s destiny?
0 likes
Meg: I think you’ve forgotten what Godwin’s Law actually is: “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
This sincere folk wisdom was crafted as a humorous way to help folks control their urge to engage in gratuitous hyperbole on Usenet (and, after the mid-90s, web forums as well).
Pro-lifers who deliberately introduce Nazi analogies from a sincere philosophical perspective — not out of emotional hyperbole — are not vulnerable to accusations concerned with Godwin’s Law.
Indeed, reflexive invocation of Godwin’s Law or its more commonly understood corollary (“You lose!”) violates what Godwin sought to promote.
It’s unseemly to be triumphalist about invoking Godwin when it’s not only not applicable, but not rationally binding in any way at all. Mistaking it as something “real” is just silly.
I think a sound critique would be concerned with how the symbol may be confusing to people. “If that’s your pro-life symbol, why does it look like something the Nazis might have produced?”
The site’s graphics suffer from over-fascination with the symbol, as well as some relatively milquetoast captions.
If the symbol is so good that it should be that salient in all the art, then the art deserves better captions.
If, as I suspect, the graphic is poorly thought-out, then adding relatively banal captions to it (however much I may agree with their content) seems a waste of time.
1 likes
Robert Berger, it would be interesting to hear your opinion of Margaret Sanger after viewing the evidence presented in Maafa 21.
0 likes
Rasqual: “Meg: I think you’ve forgotten what Godwin’s Law actually is: “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
This sincere folk wisdom was crafted as a humorous way to help folks control their urge to engage in gratuitous hyperbole on Usenet (and, after the mid-90s, web forums as well).”
The original version certainly was talking about online rhetorical excesses, but the tradition in many Usenet groups was that the mention of Hitler meant the thread was at an end and that the first to mention Hitler had lost the debate.
Rasqual, you’re right that Godwin’s Law would not necessarily apply here, but it easily goes both ways, i.e. as with saying that “Hitler was as anti-choice as any pro-lifer.”
3 likes
Del says:
July 4, 2011 at 11:31 am
Hello, Denise Noe…. I’m very glad that you chose to stick around.
(Denise) Thank you, Del.
“One of the main reasons for our high abortion rate is that so many females become pregnant out of wedlock.”
The “main reason” for our high abortion rate is that so many women have sex with men they would never marry, and women are having sex without any desire for marriage or children. They use contraception, expecting to be “safe.” So when they discover that they are pregnant, it is a crisis.
(Denise) This statement doesn’t really contradict my statement. People are marrying later in life than in very recent eras. That makes it less likely people will “wait for marriage” as has been a traditional goal. I think it is reasonable to believe that people are more apt to be “chaste” if they expect to marry young.
Should we work to encourage people to marry younger than is typical for contemporary Americans?If so, how can we make this practicable?
This should not be our goal. Our long-term goal is to remind our culture that marriage and children are very good. Most of our happiness comes from our family lives, you know. Humanity knows this; but we have forgotten.>>
(Denise) If people married younger, they would be more likely to reserve sex for marriage. Thus, we should work toward a society in which people who have grown up can support themselves — and a family — so girls and women are more apt to greet the news of pregnancy with delight.
<<When our culture appreciates family and marriage and children again, emotionally healthy young people will naturally desire to marry early.
(Denise) It seems to me that the need for college and other types of education after reaching maturity is a major reason people delay marriage.
Ironically, our young people are hitting puberty younger these days. The lag time between having powerful sexual feelings and being able to express those feelings within marriage is getting even longer.
0 likes
Lee says:
July 4, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Denise Noe – please cite your sources. Women who get abortions run the gamete of married, divorced, separated and yes, single. Women abort due to fetal abnormalities, fear, shame, coercion or because they are convinced that it is okay because the government has determined it is legal.
Being single and pregnant is no longer a stigma. Social norms have changed to embrace women who are not married and yet pregnant.
(Denise) While females who abort run the GAMUT, they are disproportionately likely to be those who were single at the time they were pregnant.
I believe that the “lag time” between the time when people of both sexes become sexually mature and the time when it makes economic sense to marry is a major reason for both the high abortion rate the prevalence of single mothers. If people — particularly females — expected to marry young, they would be more likely to forgo sex outside wedlock.
0 likes
Robert Berger,
I’ve read a little bit about Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and I have a friend who read a biography on her. She was one misguided woman. She wanted to exterminate the “undesirables” people she (or someone else) deemed “unworthy”.
Forced abortions do happen–whether it’s done by PP or other persons, it does happen. And there’s women who think they have no other options but to have an abortion. What does that say about how people are running their lives? How society is being run? That we’re leaving pregnant women to think they have no other option but to go and have an abortion even when someone presents them with alternatives. It’s something that’s been perpetuated by abortion-advocates–that a woman in a crisis pregnancy has no choice but to abort. That mindset is one of the things pro-lifers are trying to change.
Pro-lifers have been saying FOR YEARS there are OTHER ways and there’s a bunch of pro-lifers who have and will walk with these women and offer support, encouragement and help. The fact is, many abortion-advocates have sought to silence pro-lifers. Even when the only thing a pro-lifer was doing was saying “You do NOT HAVE to have an abortion.”
This is an etermination of entire group of people simply because it’s “inconvenient” or “undesirable” which is precisely what Sanger was doing–seeking to exterminate undesirables. It’s also what the Nazis did.
As a mother, a woman, and Christian I find this heartbreaking. You offer absolutely no sources so how can anyone do anything but argue against your claims. You claim the information is readily available, but you don’t provide said information.
Comparing the Nazi Holocaust with abortion isn’t so out of line. Abortion IS a holocaust–it’s the extermination of a group of people. Here, you can even look up the definition of Holocaust in the Oxford Online Dictionary: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/holocaust?region=us One of the definitions is “destruction on a large scale…”
Abortion IS destruction on a large scale. THOUSANDS of pre-born human beings lose their lives in abortion because people have deemed them as “undesirable”, “inconvenient” and “not really alive” or “not really a person”. That’s PRECISELY what the Nazis did with the people they exterminated. They decided these people weren’t really human and weren’t really worthy of life and were “undesirable” and “inconvenient”.
I will tell you right here and now, pre-born human beings aren’t about being a CONVENIENCE they are a LIFE.
When a woman conceives it’s NO LONGER just about her. There’s another life involved and therefore that other life has to be thought of.
The Nazis didn’t care to think about those other lives. They didn’t want to have anything to do with it.
Some women who abort don’t want to have anything to do with the pre-born human being’s life. So they destory that life and think it’s okay. They think “it’s legal, so it must be fine.”
Well, holocaust of human life was legal in Nazi Germany and so the Nazis figured since these people they were killing weren’t really people it was all right.
It’s the same mindset I see around abortion advocates. The pre-born human being “isn’t really alive” so “abortion is okay”.
I’m here to tell you that having gone through pregnancy I know that the pre-born human being is, in fact, very much alive.
1 likes
Doug: “The original version certainly was talking about online rhetorical excesses, but the tradition in many Usenet groups was that the mention of Hitler meant the thread was at an end and that the first to mention Hitler had lost the debate.”
Right. But this is because the discussion escalated to where Hitler was a desperate rhetorical resort. If actual analogies to Hitler would have been sound, they most certainly would have been introduced as an initial substantive element in the argument. That’s one reason late-in-the-thread analogies to Hitler are understood in general as invalid. But even this judgment is validated empirically, not prescribed a priori.
Godwin understood exactly this — that gratuitous, emotional comparisons to Hitler have a “boy who cried wolf” effect on discussions — eventually, having endured flame wars with endless Hitler diatribes, no one would ever listen patiently to a genuinely interesting Hitler comparison.
In short, Godwin’s law (and it’s more commonly appreciated corollary, which you expanded accurately beyond my “you lose” snapshot) is not a general snicker at how irrelevant Hitler analogies always are. It’s precisely because Hitler analogies, when valid, are really really important, that they must be understood under Godwin’s rubric when they’re just rhetorical pap.
Meg invoked Godwin’s law contrary to its intention.
That’s so like something Hitler would do. ;-D
0 likes
Why is it that you anti-choicers are so horrified at women having abortions, but it[‘s perfectly okay with you if they had been forced to bring children into the world they would never have been able to provide for? (And please don’t give me all that blather about abortion,because it’s absolutely impossible to see that every unwanted child is adopted by people who can provide for it).
Do you realize how horrible it is to be born to a desperately poor mother who cannot provide for you? Do you realize the cost to society of bringing large numbers of poor children into the world? You don’t want the government to subsidize abortions for poor women, but you also don’t want it to provide the subsidies those poor pregnant women would need to provide for their children. This is disgusting hypocrisy.
Yes, abprtion is tragic,sad, extremely unpleasant, distateful, etc. But being born into abject poverty is infinitely worse. You anti-choicers want it both ways.;You want poor pregnant women to give birth, but you couldn’t care less if they suffer lives of malnutrition,lack of education and job opportunity, and constantly surrounded by
filth,crime,drugs, crime and random violence.
You don’t want to pay tax money for abortions, but are willing to pay the greater taxes which result from the increased poverty,unemployment and crime which result from bringing so many poor children into the world? How can you be so blindly hypocritical?
If you are opposed to abortion, you should not vote for conservative politicians, because they want to do away with the kind of help for the poor which cvould greatly decrease abortions in America.
Remember – an unwanted child who is born to a poor woman is far more likely to be the victim of neglect and abuse, physical and or sexual, and to grow up malnourished, with its mental developemenrt and intelligence stunted, which will handicap that child for life. than one who is born into favorable circumstances. Is this good for society ? Are you kidding ?
America doesn’t even do enough for poor children who HAVE been born. Do you want huge number of more of them more of them brought into a cruel world ? If we want to reduce abortion, we must reduce poverty. Trying to stop abortion merely by making it ollegal is like trying to stop a forest fire by pouring gasoline on it and lighting cigarettes.
Comparing abortion to slavery is idiotic. No comparison could possibly be more false ,unfair and intellectually dishonest. The REAL slavery is reducing women to baby-making machines. And it’s extremely racist for white people to want poor black women to bear children they will never be able to support..
0 likes
I think Robert Berger is really a busted computer that keeps posting the same things over and over with no statistics or facts whatsoever.
1 likes
You don’t want to pay tax money for abortions, but are willing to pay the greater taxes which result from the increased poverty, unemployment and crime which result from bringing so many poor children into the world?….
Remember – an unwanted child who is born to a poor woman is far more likely to be the victim of neglect and abuse, physical and or sexual, and to grow up malnourished, with its mental developemenrt and intelligence stunted, which will handicap that child for life….
And it’s extremely racist for white people to want poor black women to bear children they will never be able to support.
Isn’t it interesting that Robert is the one to bring up race here in the same breath as crime and abuse? I’m always amazed when people are blind to their own racist, eugenicist ideologies.
1 likes
Rasqual: It’s precisely because Hitler analogies, when valid, are really really important, that they must be understood under Godwin’s rubric when they’re just rhetorical pap.
Meg invoked Godwin’s law contrary to its intention.
Only if we are agreed that the analogy is really a good one, and that’s not the case.
1 likes
Robert Berger says:
Yes, abprtion is tragic,sad, extremely unpleasant, distateful, etc. But being born into abject poverty is infinitely worse.
Ah, I see you’re of the ‘better off dead than poor’ mindset. I guess Oprah, David Geffen, Jay-Z, Celine Dion, Shania Twain, Stephen King, Hilary Swank, Demi Moore, Sean Combs, Howard Schultz, John Paul DeJoria, Leonardo Del Vecchio, Larry Ellison, Napoleon Hill, Jim Carrey, Curtis Jackson, Cary Grant, Dolly Parton…should have all been aborted then.
LIFE is a beautiful thing.
2 likes
If you are opposed to abortion, you should not vote for conservative politicians, because they want to do away with the kind of help for the poor which cvould greatly decrease abortions in America.hildren
Nope. The welfare state causes high taxes which discourages many families from having more than 2 children. The welfare state creates an underclass who is dependent on everything from the government. The kind of government you advocate, Robert, is one that leads to all sorts of bad things including abortion. I’ll stick to voting for conservative politicians. They are our only hope.
Look at Europe with its high rates of taxation and their dying populations. Whether they use birth control or abortion they are not having enough children and one big reason is the high cost of living caused by socialism.
1 likes
Robert Berger, liberal guilt victim.
Who commits this rape of the soul to people like Bob? How do they end up in such desperate existential straits?
1 likes
Both abortion and single motherhood would decrease if it were economically feasible for people to marry and support families at younger ages. What can we do to bring this about?
0 likes
Robert Berger,
You make quite a few claims and never ever have a resource to back them up.
So, your answer to the fact that people are poor is to kill their pre-born human being children?
1 likes
Denise Noe says:
Both abortion and single motherhood would decrease if it were economically feasible for people to marry and support families at younger ages. What can we do to bring this about?
I believe it is currently economically feasible for many young people to marry and have families. But we’ve raised a generation or two that aren’t satisfied with economically feasible. If they can’t have the big home, nice cars, trips, latest electronic gadget, etc, etc, then it’s not good enough.
We’ve raised a generation or two that really have no concept of sacrifice. My mother was from the Depression era and I’m so amazed at how frugal the people of her generation can be. I definitely do not have the skills and sacrificial mentality that she did.
And we’re raising the current generation to not value early marriage and family. I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve heard people shudder when they hear of someone getting married in their early 20’s. “Why so young? They’ve got time for that later? They should first get a job, get a home, etc.” Not to mention the cultural acceptance (and even expectation) of sex before marriage.
It seems we’re raising our nation’s children to believe that their readiness for marriage and family is to be measured economically instead of spiritually and emotionally. We’re reaping what we’ve sowed.
0 likes
Lrning: We’ve raised a generation or two that really have no concept of sacrifice. My mother was from the Depression era and I’m so amazed at how frugal the people of her generation can be. I definitely do not have the skills and sacrificial mentality that she did.
While there is no putting the genie back in the bottle, we are spending less and saving more, after decades when things trended the other way. The markets are studies in human emotion, going from one extreme to another.
A big difference, (to this point, anyway), between now and the 1930’s is that then we had real and massive deflation. By action and policy, our government has given no indication at all that they would now accept true deflation versus further inflation. This is true regardless of political party.
Debts like ours are dealt with in either of two ways – they are defaulted upon (repudiated), or, they are inflated out of existence by currency devaluation (and perhaps eventual collapse of the currency entirely).
1 likes