• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Godwin's Law Irrelevant in Rational Abortion Debate

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
Godwin's standard answer to this objection is to note that Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided. Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate impact.

....However, as noted, the exceptions to Godwin's Law include the invocation of the Hitler comparison in a positivist manner that does not have a normative dimension
There are reasonable comparisons between what occured to the Jews in WW2 at the hands of the Nazis and the abortion issue:

In Nazi Germany there was... Dehumanization of the Jews
With abortion there is... Dehumanization of the fetus

In Nazi Germany there was... Experimentation on the Jews
With abortion there is... Experimentation on aborted fetuses

In Nazi Germany there was... Inhuman cruelty toward the Jews
With abortion there is... Inhuman cruelty toward the fetus

In Nazi Germany there was... Killing of the Jews on a massive and atrocious scale
With abortion there is... Killing of fetuses on a massive and atrocious scale

In Nazi Germany there was... Lawful persecution of the Jews
With abortion there is... Lawful persecution of fetuses

In Nazi Germany... Jews were a scapegoat for Germany’s problems
With abortion... the Fetus is a scapegoat for mother’s problems




There are parallels. EVERY life has dignity and worth and each individual’s death is no more or less an evil due to age, geography, race, or historical time period.

One thing that should be noted, however, is that the SCOPE of the abortion holocaust dwarfs the historical Holocaust.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Felicity said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law


There are reasonable comparisons between what occured to the Jews in WW2 at the hands of the Nazis and the abortion issue:

In Nazi Germany there was... Dehumanization of the Jews
With abortion there is... Dehumanization of the fetus

In Nazi Germany there was... Experimentation on the Jews
With abortion there is... Experimentation on aborted fetuses

In Nazi Germany there was... Inhuman cruelty toward the Jews
With abortion there is... Inhuman cruelty toward the fetus

In Nazi Germany there was... Killing of the Jews on a massive and atrocious scale
With abortion there is... Killing of fetuses on a massive and atrocious scale

In Nazi Germany there was... Lawful persecution of the Jews
With abortion there is... Lawful persecution of fetuses

In Nazi Germany... Jews were a scapegoat for Germany’s problems
With abortion... the Fetus is a scapegoat for mother’s problems




There are parallels. EVERY life has dignity and worth and each individual’s death is no more or less an evil due to age, geography, race, or historical time period.

One thing that should be noted, however, is that the SCOPE of the abortion holocaust dwarfs the historical Holocaust.
As someone whose family was exterminated at the hands of Nazi's, your remarks are offensive.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
ngdawg said:
As someone whose family was exterminated at the hands of Nazi's, your remarks are offensive.
Seconded. Not to mention plain idiotic.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There should be a "law" that deals the use of personal "offense" as a defense.

Hmmmm....think Wikipedia will write an article about this one?

If valid parallels are drawn between the Nazis and any thing else, the probability of someone claiming offense as the only response to the valid parallel is 100 to 1.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Remember what I said about you being immature at times? This is one of those times.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
Remember what I said about you being immature at times? This is one of those times.
Why--because you still have no relevant response to the paralles? and somehow these posts of yours are supposed to masquerade as intelligent debate?
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Felicity said:
Why--because you still have no relevant response to the paralles? and somehow these posts of yours are supposed to masquerade as intelligent debate?
More intelligent than calling people Nazis just because I don't agree with their opinions.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
More intelligent than calling people Nazis just because I don't agree with their opinions.
Did I call someone a Nazi?

Are you gonna argue against the parallels or not?
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Felicity said:
Did I call someone a Nazi?

Are you gonna argue against the parallels or not?
I could if I wanted to. Whether I want to waste my time and IQ on a retarded argument is another matter.

* Trying to control women's bodies is akin to the Nazis.

* Calling women who've had abortions names such as "murderer" propaganda similar to the Nazis calling Jews "evil".

* Forcing women to go through physical pain, emotional upset and risk to life through unwanted pregnancy is like Nazi torture.

See the ridiculousness of bringing the Nazis into rational debate?
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
I could if I wanted to. Whether I want to waste my time and IQ on a retarded argument is another matter.

Here...I'll show you how to do it...

* Trying to control women's bodies is akin to the Nazis.
The average person who subscribes to the pro-life movement does not forcably detain or personally molest any woman. There are radicals who have done horrible things and you get no argument from me there, but unlike abortion--the average pro lifer never harms anyone, and with abortion someone ALWAYS ends up dead. Pro-life does not attempt to "control" women from doing anything but they do voice an opinion that it is wrong to harm another human being. Not like Nazi's at all.

* Calling women who've had abortions names such as "murderer" propaganda similar to the Nazis calling Jews "evil".
I agree this has propagandistic overtones. I don't do that for that reason. I call it "killing." So...I'll grant you this one.

* Forcing women to go through physical pain, emotional upset and risk to life through unwanted pregnancy is like Nazi torture.
No pro-lifer forces any woman to get pregnant and give birth. See the response to your first point. And BTW--prgnancy can be "uncomfortable" but it's not "torture" or our species would die out.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Felicity said:
Pro-life does not attempt to "control" women from doing anything but they do voice an opinion that it is wrong to harm another human being.
There's a load of BS right there.....
 

FutureIncoming

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
(Quoted whole Message #359 in the "Hey Defenders of Killing Unborn Children" Thread, which was a reply to Message #354 in that Thread, a nearly-identical message to #1 in this Thread.)
+++
Felicity wrote: "I don't agree with calling perople Nazi or Hitlers, but there are parallels between the historical Holocaust of WWII, and what is happening to the unborn.
.Dehumanization of the Jews
.Dehumanization of the fetus (which means “child” in Latin)
.Experimentation on the Jews
.Experimentation on aborted fetuses
.Inhuman cruelty toward the Jews
.Inhuman cruelty toward the fetus
.Jews as scapegoat for Germany’s problems
.Fetus as scapegoat for mother’s problems
.Killing of the Jews on a massive and atrocious scale
.Killing of fetuses on a massive and atrocious scale
.Lawful persecution of the Jews
.Lawful persecution of fetuses
Because we see the unborn human as a human deserving human rights, it is valid to compare Holocausts. There is no word for the abortion holocaust because we are in the midst of it--just as the Jewish Holocaust was not called such until after it ended--perhaps in the future, when it ends and we have sufficient time to reflect upon the evil of abortion, we'll have a word for it..."
=======================

Interesting, but flawed. For example, "dehumanization" is not needed for fetuses. It is a biological fact that the fetus is no more than an animal, EVEN THOUGH perfectly human. Jews, who have more-than-animal-level minds, were indeed dehumanized; their minds' abilities were discounted. For a fetus, it is not possible to discount a more-than-animal mind that does not exist!

Regarding experimentation on ABORTED fetuses; shouldn't you have compared that to experimentation on KILLED Jews? Yes, I know that tissues can live for hours after the death of an organism (see Luigi Galvani and the leg of a freshly killed frog, which inspired Mary Shelly to write "Frankenstein"), and thus they can be experimented-upon, but this would also have been true of killed Jews (tissues would survive that could be experimented-upon). Your analogy breaks, therefore, because the Nazis only experimented upon live Jews.

Regarding inhuman cruelty, this can only be true if performed by inhumans. :)
Joking aside, did you not see Steen's posting to the effect that the fetal brain does not become attached to the nervous system until the start of the third trimester? This is the basis of claims to the effect that the (younger) fetus cannot feel pain. Personally, I think it would be more accurate to say that the young fetus cannot UNDERSTAND pain; its autonomic nervous system develops enough that pain-signals can generate a response, even with no brain attached. Understanding takes significant brainpower; robotic stimulus/response does not. So, the point of the preceding is that if the pains of cruelty cannot be understood, then how significant is it? YES, I know that the preceding means that cruelty is fully significant in the third trimester -- but MOST abortions are performed before then.

Regarding scapegoats, this is not really necessay when Free Will is involved. By definition, a Free Will can choose to do a particular thing REGARDLESS of any stimulus. Claims regarding scapegoats are in essence denials that Free Will exists! Thus a woman might say, in sequence, "I want a child when the time is right.", "Oops, I am pregnant and not yet ready.", "My prior decision stands; mindless biology does not decide for me, when child-raising must begin." NO NEED FOR SCAPEGOAT, therefore!

Regarding killing on a massive scale, three things. First, most killing of Jews was done on an "industrialized"/"mass production"/"wholesale" sort of manner, at only a few locations, while abortion is done "retail" in many many locations. Second, Jew-killing was hush-hush (a major reason for only a few industrial-scale locations), and took a while before the news got out AND was believed -- while abortions are done fairly openly; a large segment of society accepts it, which likely would NOT have been true of mass Jew-killing, even in Nazi Germany (remember movie "Schindler's List"? Schindler was a Nazi!). Third, I note that you did not use the word "murder", just so you could more closely compare the killing of mindless animals (which isn't murder) to the killing of fully-minded Jews (which was indeed murder). Tsk, tsk.

Regarding persecution, this DOES NOT apply to fetuses. They are generally either left alone or killed; persecution is a middle ground, like torture.

The preceding DIFFERENCES between abortions and the Holocaust mean that you are not likely to see the era of legal abortions ending. Even if made illegal here, that will not stop those who seek them in secret or elsewhere, as you know. Your statement, "we see the unborn human as a human deserving human rights" HAS NO OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY, because of the extremely different mental abilities of unborn humans and three-year-olds. Animals they are; animals they always will be. When you decide to give human rights to sharks and wasps and pirannhas and mosquitos and ringworms and tsetse flies and wolves and scorpions and all the other animals in the world, THEN you can give human rights to mindless unborn human animals (who will appreciate having those rights EXACTLY as much as the other animals will appreciate it: hardly!). Not before.
+++
(End of quote from other Thread, to which Felicity FAILED to respond.)
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FutureIncoming said:
Interesting, but flawed. For example, "dehumanization" is not needed for fetuses. It is a biological fact that the fetus is no more than an animal, EVEN THOUGH perfectly human. Jews, who have more-than-animal-level minds, were indeed dehumanized; their minds' abilities were discounted. For a fetus, it is not possible to discount a more-than-animal mind that does not exist!
Obviously we disagree on this point and I reject the fetus=animal statement that you and I have run circles on. So this is irrelevant. Fetuses are in fact human beings and so are Jews. The "mind" you are so fond of is not applicable to the fact of the "dehumanizing" that you acquiesce to.


Regarding experimentation on ABORTED fetuses; shouldn't you have compared that to experimentation on KILLED Jews? Yes, I know that tissues can live for hours after the death of an organism (see Luigi Galvani and the leg of a freshly killed frog, which inspired Mary Shelly to write "Frankenstein"), and thus they can be experimented-upon, but this would also have been true of killed Jews (tissues would survive that could be experimented-upon). Your analogy breaks, therefore, because the Nazis only experimented upon live Jews.
Stem cells are removed from live embryos. The process of abortion is experimented with--causing the death of the fetuses.

Regarding inhuman cruelty, this can only be true if performed by inhumans. :)
Joking aside, did you not see Steen's posting to the effect that the fetal brain does not become attached to the nervous system until the start of the third trimester? This is the basis of claims to the effect that the (younger) fetus cannot feel pain. Personally, I think it would be more accurate to say that the young fetus cannot UNDERSTAND pain; its autonomic nervous system develops enough that pain-signals can generate a response, even with no brain attached. Understanding takes significant brainpower; robotic stimulus/response does not. So, the point of the preceding is that if the pains of cruelty cannot be understood, then how significant is it? YES, I know that the preceding means that cruelty is fully significant in the third trimester -- but MOST abortions are performed before then.
Cruelty does not require an understanding of the cruelty by the victim. you can be cruel to animals--so even by your standards--you can be cruel to fetuses.

Regarding scapegoats, this is not really necessay when Free Will is involved. By definition, a Free Will can choose to do a particular thing REGARDLESS of any stimulus. Claims regarding scapegoats are in essence denials that Free Will exists! Thus a woman might say, in sequence, "I want a child when the time is right.", "Oops, I am pregnant and not yet ready.", "My prior decision stands; mindless biology does not decide for me, when child-raising must begin." NO NEED FOR SCAPEGOAT, therefore!
I don't even get what you're saying here. It is not the fetus that is the cause of the mother's "problem”--it's her having become pregnant that is her problem--but the fetus is the one that bears the burden and is killed.

Regarding killing on a massive scale, three things. First, most killing of Jews was done on an "industrialized"/"mass production"/"wholesale" sort of manner, at only a few locations, while abortion is done "retail" in many many locations.
yeah--so...since there are more locations to exterminate fetuses that somehow makes it "less like" extermination of Jews? That doesn't even make sense.

Second, Jew-killing was hush-hush (a major reason for only a few industrial-scale locations),
And you think the abortion industry is wide open? Try to get accurate statistics and you will see the "hiding" of facts.

and took a while before the news got out AND was believed -- while abortions are done fairly openly; a large segment of society accepts it, which likely would NOT have been true of mass Jew-killing, even in Nazi Germany (remember movie "Schindler's List"? Schindler was a Nazi!).
and because more people are sucked into the regime of the abortive culture makes it "less like" the Nazi culture? Again...doesn't add up.

Third, I note that you did not use the word "murder", just so you could more closely compare the killing of mindless animals (which isn't murder) to the killing of fully-minded Jews (which was indeed murder). Tsk, tsk.
I don't use the word "murder as noted in a previous post--not for the reason you would like to suggest.

Regarding persecution, this DOES NOT apply to fetuses. They are generally either left alone or killed; persecution is a middle ground, like torture.
To quote your oft expressed..."HAW, HAW, HAW..." Unjustly killed for no crime at all and marginalized by those such as yourself as "not-human"? That is the very definition of persecution!
+++
(End of quote from other Thread, to which Felicity FAILED to respond.)
There really is very little relevant there to warrant a response...:confused:
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ngdawg said:
There's a load of BS right there.....
I see you have nothing relevant to add either...
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think what's missing in this whole thing is the simple rationale behind "Godwin's Law". That it's just lame to bring up the Nazi canard and a cop-out for those who do. Bringing up comparisons to Hitler, or the SS, or Nazis when the subject matter doesn't deal with them is lazy. One should be able to debate the basis of their subject without resorting to these tactics.
 

doughgirl

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
"As someone whose family was exterminated at the hands of Nazi's, your remarks are offensive."

I doubt Felecity meant that. Many of my relatives died int he Holocaust. I think she was refering to the numbers.

And Felicity your 100% correct.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
shuamort said:
I think what's missing in this whole thing is the simple rationale behind "Godwin's Law". That it's just lame to bring up the Nazi canard and a cop-out for those who do. Bringing up comparisons to Hitler, or the SS, or Nazis when the subject matter doesn't deal with them is lazy. One should be able to debate the basis of their subject without resorting to these tactics.
It is foolish to use it as a way to make an invalid comparison or to villainize someone by comparing them and/or their point of view to the evil of Hitler, Nazis, the holocaust, etc...but a rational comparison based on similar attributes is valid and specifically a mention of any of those things is NOT necessarily subject to the Godwin law. If someone wants to debate the validity of the comparison--fine. FI did so, but he simply reject the "human-ness" of the fetus because it doesn't have this "mind" he thinks is relevant to the being so there is no real further debate with him on the Nazi/abortion comparison--he rejects a fundamental premise and I reject his rejection and we've butted head on the issue he's clinging to in other threads more appropriate to that discussion.

I and all other pro-lifers couldn't care less if the fetus can "think" at any particular pre-natal stage of development. It is a human being in the womb and it is marginalized, abused, and killed at the hands of those who have more power and choose to do so. Jews are human beings that were marginalized, abused, and killed at the hands who have more power and chose to do so--also. Valid comparison.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
doughgirl said:
"As someone whose family was exterminated at the hands of Nazi's, your remarks are offensive."

I doubt Felecity meant that. Many of my relatives died int he Holocaust. I think she was refering to the numbers.

And Felicity your 100% correct.
Of course I meant no offense. And I find abortion incredibly offensive to the dignity of all human beings. I was referring to the numbers and the viciousness, and the cruelty, and the evil of what occurred to the Jews--and to all those other peoples in addition to the Jews that were killed in the Holocaust--and the same in abortion. As for the numbers specifically--60 million is a helluva lot of people killed. 450 million in the US alone since 1973 is astronomical. thanks doughgirl.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Oy. And how are you people are convincing me that eugenics is a bad idea?! :lol:
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity said:
It is foolish to use it as a way to make an invalid comparison or to villainize someone by comparing them and/or their point of view to the evil of Hitler, Nazis, the holocaust, etc...but a rational comparison based on similar attributes is valid and specifically a mention of any of those things is NOT necessarily subject to the Godwin law. If someone wants to debate the validity of the comparison--fine. FI did so, but he simply reject the "human-ness" of the fetus because it doesn't have this "mind" he thinks is relevant to the being so there is no real further debate with him on the Nazi/abortion comparison--he rejects a fundamental premise and I reject his rejection and we've butted head on the issue he's clinging to in other threads more appropriate to that discussion.

I and all other pro-lifers couldn't care less if the fetus can "think" at any particular pre-natal stage of development. It is a human being in the womb and it is marginalized, abused, and killed at the hands of those who have more power and choose to do so. Jews are human beings that were marginalized, abused, and killed at the hands who have more power and chose to do so--also. Valid comparison.
So, no. Go back to my argument and re-read it. You're ignoring my main points.
 

doughgirl

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Vergiss said, "See the ridiculousness of bringing the Nazis into rational debate?”
It is not ridiculous and Felicity knows her stuff. Obviously you do not. Especially about pre-holocaust killings. Ever hear of a man called Leo Alexander? Of course not, you have no idea who he is.
He had a lot to do with the prosecution of Nazis at the Nuremburg trials. He was disturbed by parallels he could see between the Nazi medical mentality that led to the Holocaust and some philosophical assumptions found on the part of doctors in America. He warned us in 1949 in words even more relevant today.

He said, “American medicine must realize where it stands in its fundamental premise.” Remember the deafening silence from the medical establishment. “when the first 273,000 German aged, infirmed and retarded were killed in gas chambers there was no outcry from the medical profession either, and it was not far from there to Auschwitz.”
No parallels?………think again.

Alexander says, “Whatever proportion these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they started from small beginings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitudes of physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which the entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude towards the non-rehabilitable sick.”
The Jews were NOT the only ones systematically killed. It began long before this. It was originally aimed against handicapped Aryan Germans not Jews or Slavs. And it was justified not by racial theories but by Hegelian utilitarianism.
It was the euthanasia program first organized under the Wiemar Republic by the MEDICAL PROFESSION, which led to and merged into the genocide program -1941.

There are striking parallels between what happened then to the unwanted in the third Reich and what is happening to the unwanted both before and after birth today.
You think there are no parallels? I would suggest reading these books by Dr. William J. Brennan.

Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives

The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution


I am NOT calling anyone here a Nazi. But I do agree with this statement by Dr. Brennan.

“It’s the same kind of mentality that we don’t respect human life and we have to dehumanize it and then we find the technology to get rid of it. The Nazis dehumanized their victims extensively. They called them subhuman, non-human, parasites, animals, objects, nonpersons. The same terminology dominates the lexicon of todays abortion semantics.”
How ironic that….. most these terms pro-choicers use frequently to make their points. No parallels?……yea right.

Bottom line... Those of you who think the Holocaust started with the killing of the Jews, are wrong.
It started with disabled German citizens actually more than 200,000 of them killed…….BY PHYSICIANS as part of the so called euthanasia program. This was an idea and was a proposal brought to the German government by the physicians of GERMANY, and by the medical establishment. They took it upon themselves to decide who would live and who would die.

Both the Nazis and the Communists had low views of humanity. It is not the pro-lifers who fall into this category.


And Coffee likes Kevorkian…………go figure.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
doughgirl said:
I am NOT calling anyone here a Nazi. But I do agree with this statement by Dr. Brennan.
“It’s the same kind of mentality that we don’t respect human life and we have to dehumanize it and then we find the technology to get rid of it. The Nazis dehumanized their victims extensively. They called them subhuman, non-human, parasites, animals, objects, nonpersons. The same terminology dominates the lexicon of todays abortion semantics.”
Sad, how the devaluation of women into mere carriers of fetuses with no right to their own bodies in the process, making them mere slaves, is the disrespect of life, dehumanized, seeking the law to do away with their individuality and personhood. The Nazis dehumanized their victims extensively. They called them subhuman, non-human, objects, nonpersons. The same terminology dominates the lexicon of todays prolife semantics.
Both the Nazis and the Communists had low views of humanity. It is not the pro-lifers who fall into this category.
Sure prolifers fall into this cathegory by their denial of women as individual persons with control over their own bodies, instead seeing women merely as the human equivalent of brood mares, mere carriers for the holy fetus, but with no individual right ro their own body in the way the rest of the population enjoys, instead making them mere breeding slaves.
 

doughgirl

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Steen says, “The Nazis dehumanized their victims extensively. They called them subhuman, non-human, objects, nonpersons. The same terminology dominates the lexicon of todays prolife semantics.”
Those are terms YOU USE to describe the unborn child. They are YOUR SIDES favorite words. Steen you happen to think abortion is fine up until the woman delivers at term. If that isn’t horrendous than I do not know what is? For someone to take the position that a living creature whose heart is beating……….could and should be dismembered alive……is……I can’t even say it.

“Sure prolifers fall into this cathegory by their denial of women as individual persons with control over their own bodies, instead seeing women merely as the human equivalent of brood mares, mere carriers for the holy fetus, but with no individual right ro their own body in the way the rest of the population enjoys, instead making them mere breeding slaves.”
Like men, woman do have control over their bodies. Every woman can prevent a pregnancy if she is careful and uses protection. Problem today……….woman use abortion as a form of birth control. If a woman continually keeps getting pregnant she is an idiot. Lets put it this way, she aint the sharpest tool in the shed. And statistics show that the majority of woman get multiple abortions.

Woman are blessed with the ability to birth children. That is one major difference between men and woman. I see the womb as a safe, magical place where the unborn can grow until they are born. You see the womb as a playground……..nothing special or sacred at all. You see this as a place where it is perfectly acceptable for the unborn to be dismembered………….

I take it that you are not a Christian or a person with a religious faith……….that is clearly evident by your posts, especially your mocking comment “mere carriers for the holy fetus”

Since you brought up the term holy……

I happen to believe that the womb is God's beautiful gift to women. I believed God designed our whole reproductive cycle especially for us. This is one blessing he did not give men. As woman we should embrace every part of our reproductive system - menstruation, ovulation, conception, gestation, lactation. The womb should be protected.

I do not expect you to understand this as you look at the womb as a killing field for the unborn child.

"The Almighty who shall bless thee with the blessings of the
breasts and of the womb." Genesis 49:25
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
doughgirl said:
The Nazis dehumanized their victims extensively. They called them subhuman, non-human, objects, nonpersons. The same terminology dominates the lexicon of todays prolife semantics.”
Those are terms YOU USE to describe the unborn child. They are YOUR SIDES favorite words.
I have never said "subhuman" or non-human, so why do you lie?

Regardless, you have yet to show anythi ng different in your view of the woman,
Steen you happen to think abortion is fine up until the woman delivers at term.
"fine"? I have never stated that it is fine, your falsehood none withstanding. I feel it is a medical decision only, that's all.
If that isn’t horrendous than I do not know what is?
Well, it isn't, your silly and histrionic hyperbole none withstanding.
...I can’t even say it.
Yeah, it is all emotion and no logic or fact with you. Pure silly histrionics and hysterical claims.
Like men, woman do have control over their bodies. Every woman can prevent a pregnancy if she is careful and uses protection.
Ah, so you are saying that abortion is OK if contraception was used. Or is your argument hypocritical?
Problem today……….woman use abortion as a form of birth control.
Your "just because I say so" false claim about women truly shows your hate mongering misogyny.
If a woman continually keeps getting pregnant she is an idiot.
Once again, evidence of your flagrant, hate mongering misogyny
Lets put it this way, she aint the sharpest tool in the shed. And statistics show that the majority of woman get multiple abortions.
Nope:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm
"For women who obtained an abortion and whose number of previous abortions was adequately reported (40 reporting areas), 54% were reported to have obtained an abortion for the first time,"
Woman are blessed with the ability to birth children.
That is only a blessing if they WANT to. Once again, your claim is misleading.
That is one major difference between men and woman. I see the womb as a safe, magical place where the unborn can grow until they are born.
Well, isn't that special. SO don't have an abortion. Unfortunately, you see women as chattel as somebody to oppress into slavery.
You see the womb as a playground……..
Aaannd... Right back to your outright lying. No surprise there.
Nothing special or sacred at all.
"Sacred"? :roll:
You see this as a place where it is perfectly acceptable for the unborn to be dismembered………….
I see it as a place where nobody has any business unless allowed, where YOU certainly have no right to intrude, and neither does the Government.
I take it that you are not a Christian or a person with a religious faith……….
That would be false. I am a Christian.
that is clearly evident by your posts,
you are again spewing falsehoods.
especially your mocking comment “mere carriers for the holy fetus”
Well prolifers like to blsaphemously lie and claim God is on their side. So the ironic observation of you seeing the fetus as holy, the baby as a welfare leech and the woman as chattel certainly is appropriate, as you spit God in the eye through your lies in God's name.
Since you brought up the term holy……

I happen to believe that the womb is God's beautiful gift to women.
So don't have an abotion. Don't unChristianly impose your personal beliefs into politics in God's name. That's blaspehmy you spew. Also please cease3 your incessant bearing false witness.

Or.. Oh, I get it, you are a hypocrite, acting very anti-Christian in the name of God. Ah, why didn't I see that sooner?
I believed God designed our whole reproductive cycle especially for us.
It evolved, it wasn't designed.
This is one blessing he did not give men.
You begin to sound like Freud was right, that women have penis-envy.
As woman we should embrace every part of our reproductive system - menstruation, ovulation, conception, gestation, lactation.
"should" Yes, prolifers are always big on assigning duties to others; big on oppressing them to their own unique views. Shame on you for your attempted enslavement of women.
The womb should be protected.
The WOMAN should be protected. Obviously you see her as nothing but a 'womb," as is expected by misogynistic prolifers.
I do not expect you to understand this as you look at the womb as a killing field for the unborn child.
And for good measure, you spew another lie into your post here. How sad and pathetic, this incessant sophistic lying of yours.
"The Almighty who shall bless thee with the blessings of the
breasts and of the womb." Genesis 49:25
Yadda, yadda, yadda, quote-mining the Bible.

"Samaria will bear her guilt
because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to pieces,
and their pregnant women ripped open.
Hosea 13: 1 - 16

Sure seems anti-fetus to me.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For those that got my last post that I deleted...The verse steen cites is Hosea 13:16 in the KJV...But it is Hosea 14:1 in the NAB... In context..the reference is the result of idolotry and disobedience. they were delivered onto their own sins...sound more like our current state of self-idolotry and that the cited verse only points more directly to the consequences of sin that result in the proliferation of abortion. God doesn't hate fetuses...he allows the Sumarians to be delivered to the ultimate result of their sins...He allows that in our times as well.
 
Top Bottom