Are pro-choicers worse than Holocaust deniers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ribozyme

Guest
What’s the difference between a pro-choice defender and a holocaust denier?
The holocaust denier doesn’t pretend killing innocent people is the right thing to do.
That quote is from another thread on this forum. I’ve also started another thread on another forum about that post too.

So are people such as Peter Singer worse than Holocaust deniers? I found it offensive that Peter Singer was compared to a Holocaust denier.
 
Did you find it offensive for Peter Singer or for the Holocaust deniers? I could not tell. Do you not notice the Mr. Singer could be classified as a holocaust supporter? Possibly not the Holocaust of the Jewish people, but of the unborn, the newborn and the disabled.

Holocaust deniers are one group of crazies (for a loss of a better word).

Peter Singer really believes that killing a new born baby is not as bad as killing a gorilla, that killing of the disabled is somehow noble.

This is a Catholic website, It is not the proper forum to proclaim the virtues of Peter Singer.
 
The Holocaust (if you mean the Nazi atrocities against the Jews before and during WW2) is no longer in operation. Denying it ever happened is a kind of repugnant insanity. But the very denial attempts to erase it from history, which testifies to the denier’s belief that it was a bad thing.

Supporters of abortion condone the active killing of the unborn in the present.

Yes: that is worse than the attempt to manipulate history. It’s kind of like deciding who is worse – Hitler or Osama bin Laden.
 
Did you find it offensive for Peter Singer or for the Holocaust deniers?



Holocaust deniers are one group of crazies (for a loss of a better word).



This is a Catholic website, It is not the proper forum to proclaim the virtues of Peter Singer.
I found it offensive for pro-choicers.

I only mentioned Peter Singer because he provides a person such as myself with a system of morality. I consider him venerable because he showed how one can be moral without believing in a theistic entity. I do not think he should be compared to a Holocaust denier because he wants to prevent events of such pain and suffering from occuring.

I do not consider pro-choicers to be in the league of Holocaust deniers who often have a pernicious agenda such as white nationalism.
 
No, I’d say they are both about equally blameless, if they’re sincere. If someone really believes that the fetus is not a person, or if someone really believes that the holocaust didn’t happen, then I don’t see it as wrong for them to be pro-choice or… um… whatever the word is for believers that the holocaust didn’t happen (it’s probably “crazies”).

Mind you, I’m not saying that it’s good to be pro-choice, only that if you really think the fetus isn’t a person, it would be hypocritical for you to be pro-life. And if you don’t think the holocaust happened, you probably have other issues fueling this (like racism), and those you can probably be held accountable for.

I hate abortion debates, first because they never get anywhere, but second because both sides tend to go out of their way to not understand the other side’s position. Pro-choicers accuse pro-lifers of wanting to control women (when obviously that has nothing to do with why they’re pro-life), and pro-lifers accuse pro-choicers of being pro-baby-killing (which, again, has nothing to do with why they’re pro-choice). I realize this is an extremely crucial issue with the lives of millions of unborn babies at stake, but that doesn’t mean we’re permitted to display a massive lack of charity for our opponents. They are people too trying to do what they think is best. Even though they’re wrong, it’s for legitimate reasons. (Not always, obviously; some are probably doing it out of spite, some may be pro-baby-killing, and some may even be pro-murder, but these are the border cases and aren’t at all closely related to either the mainstream pro-choicer or the mainstream arguments for the pro-choice position. Also always remember that there are probably some crazies in the Pro-life camp too, people who really do want to oppress women).
 
That quote is from another thread on this forum. I’ve also started another thread on another forum about that post too.

So are people such as Peter Singer worse than Holocaust deniers? I found it offensive that Peter Singer was compared to a Holocaust denier.
It just points out that some people are lacking in the basics of Christian charity. As long as they are “right” on one issue, it apparently leaves them with the belief that they can say and do pretty much anything they wish and treat people with utter disdain and superiority. I tend to turn my back and kick the dust from the shoes and move away from such people. Their self-righteousness usually blinds them so completely that they believe they are a God unto themselves.
 
I only mentioned Peter Singer because he provides a person such as myself with a system of morality. I consider him venerable because he showed how one can be moral without believing in a theistic entity. I do not think he should be compared to a Holocaust denier because he wants to prevent events of such pain and suffering from occuring.
Please, let me know how it is venerable to advocate the of the death of the disabled, new-borns and the unborn. Does Mr. Singer not advocate these things? Belief in a “theistic entity” is not the only reason I am pro-life. The basic scence of how conception and embryonic develpment are what convinced me.

I used to be “pro-choice” and was never an atheist, I was misinformed about what “choice” was.
 
Please, let me know how it is venerable to advocate the of the death of the disabled, new-borns and the unborn. Does Mr. Singer not advocate these things? Belief in a “theistic entity” is not the only reason I am pro-life. The basic scence of how conception and embryonic develpment are what convinced me.

I used to be “pro-choice” and was never an atheist, I was misinformed about what “choice” was.
How does Singer advocate the death of the disabled? He does not want to kill people because we have to respect their desire and preference to life. Besides killing people causes pain and suffering; furthermore, it violates others interests.
 
I do not consider pro-choicers to be in the league of Holocaust deniers who often have a pernicious agenda such as white nationalism.
Ridding the world of people with disabilities in the name of reducing their suffering is just as pernicious an agenda as white nationalism. In fact, if you read some of Margaret Sanger’s writing, you’ll see that’s exactly their intent.
 
The original quote is mine.
What’s the difference between a pro-choice defender and a holocaust denier?
The holocaust denier doesn’t pretend killing innocent people is the right thing to do.
The answer to the question posed by the thread, “Are pro-choicers worse than Holocaust deniers?” is yes. For the following reasons:
  1. The Holocaust deniers implicitly or explicitly admit the Holocaust was wrong. (If they thought it was right, why would they deny it?)
  2. The Holocaust is over. No one is now dying from the Holocaust.
  3. The pro-choicers claim, implicitly or explicitly, that the murder of the innocent is right.
  4. The abortion Holocaust is on-going, and hundreds of thousands of innocent children are put to death every year in this country. With the support and approval of the pro-choicers.
 
How does Singer advocate the death of the disabled? He does not want to kill people because we have to respect their desire and preference to life. Besides killing people causes pain and suffering; furthermore, it violates others interests__________________
He does say that it is moral to end the life of disabled newborns, the parents should be allowed to chose, although he would not require it. He does not think that a disabled new born would suffer because it is not “self aware” . For Mr. Singer being alive requires the subjective criteria of being “self-aware”

Please read “The Architects of the Culture of Death” to see a better articulated article on Peter Singer than I am able to give.
 
The original quote is mine.

The answer to the question posed by the thread, “Are pro-choicers worse than Holocaust deniers?” is yes. For the following reasons:
  1. The Holocaust deniers implicitly or explicitly admit the Holocaust was wrong. (If they thought it was right, why would they deny it?)
  2. The Holocaust is over. No one is now dying from the Holocaust.
  3. The pro-choicers claim, implicitly or explicitly, that the murder of the innocent is right.
  4. The abortion Holocaust is on-going, and hundreds of thousands of innocent children are put to death every year in this country. With the support and approval of the pro-choicers.
Are you a WWII Holocaust denier?:confused: 🤷
 
First lets get the terms right. If pro-infanticide and holocaust deniers. They are both bad but at the least the holocaust deniers are not calling for taxpayer funded death camps.
 
That quote is from another thread on this forum. I’ve also started another thread on another forum about that post too.

So are people such as Peter Singer worse than Holocaust deniers? I found it offensive that Peter Singer was compared to a Holocaust denier.
Yes. They are worse than Holocaust deniers.

Is the Holocaust denier worse than the intruder in your home murdering your family?
 
How does Singer advocate the death of the disabled? He does not want to kill people because we have to respect their desire and preference to life. Besides killing people causes pain and suffering; furthermore, it violates others interests.
Peter Singer is a proponent of eugenics:

social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031202122825648

As noted, and to be fair, Singer was seemingly not in favor of proactive eugenics, like the forced sterilization of undesirables. Many, many were from the end of the 19th century through the beginning of the 20th century. In fact, we (or at least US eugenics proponents) provided the blue print for the Nazi purity law and had a shameful, rigged supreme court case. Eugenics laws remained in place, and forced sterilizations continued to occur under them, up until the 1970s, when the Supreme Court finally reversed itself.

That surge in eugenics’ popularity, particularly western eugenics seems to have had a profound influence on the Church. First the Church left our long standing tradition of delayed ensoulment in place, but proclaimed that it was not relevant, abortion before that point was “anticipated murder” of a human being. By the turn of the century the Church went further and declared that even abortions for the welfare of the mother were illicit, something that the Church had declined to rule on as late as 1869. Even the language of eugenics seems to be condemned by 1913, and from the deliberations it seems clear that the eugenics movement and its horrific manifistation in the holocaust had a profound effect even decades later during the Second Vatican Council when LUMEN GENTIUM was drafted.

Even in the 1990s, Pope John Paul II used linguistic references to both eugenics and the holocaust when he gave his compelling speech regarding the individiuals in what was then called a “permanent vegative state”.

On the original question I can only say what I always say. To me, these comparisons are meaningless. The death of a single life is a tragedy almost beyond our ability to grasp. When we start trying to make quantitive comparisons between attrocities of such scale, we inevitably end up dehumanizing the victims. We do not love them as ourselves, we do not picture each and every one of them as someone even close to us. Since we cannot view the scale in God’s terms, our assessments are hollow at best.
 
On the original question I can only say what I always say. To me, these comparisons are meaningless. The death of a single life is a tragedy almost beyond our ability to grasp. When we start trying to make quantitive comparisons between attrocities of such scale, we inevitably end up dehumanizing the victims. We do not love them as ourselves, we do not picture each and every one of them as someone even close to us. Since we cannot view the scale in God’s terms, our assessments are hollow at best.
Distinguish between words and actions.

The Nazi Holocaust is over. The Holocaust deniers are simply self-deluded people on the same scale as those who vociferously claim there was a “second gunman on the grassy knoll.” And Holocaust deniers at least tacitly admit the Nazi Holocaust was wrong. Their offense is mere words.

But the Abortion Holocaust is going on now. Innocent children are dying by the hundreds of thousands in this country, alone. And that is possible only because those who choose and perform abortion have the active support of the pro-choice crowd.
 
Peter Singer is a proponent of eugenics:

social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031202122825648

As noted, and to be fair, Singer was seemingly not in favor of proactive eugenics, like the forced sterilization of undesirables. Many, many were from the end of the 19th century through the beginning of the 20th century. In fact, we (or at least US eugenics proponents) provided the blue print for the Nazi purity law and had a shameful, rigged supreme court case. Eugenics laws remained in place, and forced sterilizations continued to occur under them, up until the 1970s, when the Supreme Court finally reversed itself.
I can assure you that eugenics in the future will not involve sterilization or selective breeding.

Will it be unfair? Probably, but I only loathe it because it might prevent the formation of an egalitarian world.
 
I can assure you that eugenics in the future will not involve sterilization or selective breeding.
And you found that guarentee written in the Kama Sutra, or carved on the stelae at Bonampak?
Will it be unfair? Probably, but I only loathe it because it might prevent the formation of an egalitarian world.
Wow!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top