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
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.
ngdawg said:As someone whose family was exterminated at the hands of Nazi's, your remarks are offensive.
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 said:Remember what I said about you being immature at times? This is one of those times.
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?
Did I call someone a Nazi?vergiss said:More intelligent than calling people Nazis just because I don't agree with their opinions.
Felicity said:Did I call someone a Nazi?
Are you gonna argue against the parallels or not?
vergiss said:I could if I wanted to. Whether I want to waste my time and IQ on a retarded argument is another matter.
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.* Trying to control women's bodies is akin to the Nazis.
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.* 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.
There's a load of BS right there.....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.
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.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!
Stem cells are removed from live embryos. The process of abortion is experimented with--causing the death of the fetuses.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.
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 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.
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 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!
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.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.
And you think the abortion industry is wide open? Try to get accurate statistics and you will see the "hiding" of facts.Second, Jew-killing was hush-hush (a major reason for only a few industrial-scale locations),
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.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!).
I don't use the word "murder as noted in a previous post--not for the reason you would like to suggest.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.
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!Regarding persecution, this DOES NOT apply to fetuses. They are generally either left alone or killed; persecution is a middle ground, like torture.
There really is very little relevant there to warrant a response...+++
(End of quote from other Thread, to which Felicity FAILED to respond.)
I see you have nothing relevant to add either...ngdawg said:There's a load of BS right there.....
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.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.
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.
So, no. Go back to my argument and re-read it. You're ignoring my main points.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.
Vergiss said, "See the ridiculousness of bringing the Nazis into rational debate?”
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.”
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.”
“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.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.”
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.Both the Nazis and the Communists had low views of humanity. It is not the pro-lifers who fall into this category.
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.”
“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.”
I have never said "subhuman" or non-human, so why do you lie?doughgirl said:Those are terms YOU USE to describe the unborn child. They are YOUR SIDES favorite words.The Nazis dehumanized their victims extensively. They called them subhuman, non-human, objects, nonpersons. The same terminology dominates the lexicon of todays prolife semantics.”
"fine"? I have never stated that it is fine, your falsehood none withstanding. I feel it is a medical decision only, that's all.Steen you happen to think abortion is fine up until the woman delivers at term.
Well, it isn't, your silly and histrionic hyperbole none withstanding.If that isn’t horrendous than I do not know what is?
Yeah, it is all emotion and no logic or fact with you. Pure silly histrionics and hysterical claims....I can’t even say it.
Ah, so you are saying that abortion is OK if contraception was used. Or is your argument hypocritical?Like men, woman do have control over their bodies. Every woman can prevent a pregnancy if she is careful and uses protection.
Your "just because I say so" false claim about women truly shows your hate mongering misogyny.Problem today……….woman use abortion as a form of birth control.
Once again, evidence of your flagrant, hate mongering misogynyIf a woman continually keeps getting pregnant she is an idiot.
Nope:Lets put it this way, she aint the sharpest tool in the shed. And statistics show that the majority of woman get multiple abortions.
That is only a blessing if they WANT to. Once again, your claim is misleading.Woman are blessed with the ability to birth children.
Well, isn't that special. SO don't have an abortion. Unfortunately, you see women as chattel as somebody to oppress into slavery.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.
Aaannd... Right back to your outright lying. No surprise there.You see the womb as a playground……..
"Sacred"? :roll:Nothing special or sacred at all.
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.You see this as a place where it is perfectly acceptable for the unborn to be dismembered………….
That would be false. I am a Christian.I take it that you are not a Christian or a person with a religious faith……….
you are again spewing falsehoods.that is clearly evident by your posts,
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.especially your mocking comment “mere carriers for the holy fetus”
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.Since you brought up the term holy……
I happen to believe that the womb is God's beautiful gift to women.
It evolved, it wasn't designed.I believed God designed our whole reproductive cycle especially for us.
You begin to sound like Freud was right, that women have penis-envy.This is one blessing he did not give men.
"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.As woman we should embrace every part of our reproductive system - menstruation, ovulation, conception, gestation, lactation.
The WOMAN should be protected. Obviously you see her as nothing but a 'womb," as is expected by misogynistic prolifers.The womb should be protected.
And for good measure, you spew another lie into your post here. How sad and pathetic, this incessant sophistic lying of yours.I do not expect you to understand this as you look at the womb as a killing field for the unborn child.
Yadda, yadda, yadda, quote-mining the Bible."The Almighty who shall bless thee with the blessings of the
breasts and of the womb." Genesis 49:25
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?