Jessa Duggar Instagram Post Equating Holocaust and Abortion Causes Stir

[gracepoole]

The Duggar family is known for being pro-life and very active when it comes to the subject. However, many commented that Jessa should not have linked the Holocaust to abortion in order to make a point.

“Have some respect for the children and grandchildren of survivors,” jonifshr112 commented.

“As the granddaughter of Holocaust Survivors and a practicing Christian I am offended by your comments,” added kebula99.

Others, though, side with Duggar and argue that she is placing value on all lives, no matter the age or circumstance. One comment simply stated that murder is murder, no matter the situation.

christianpost.com/news/jessa-duggar-instagram-post-equating-holocaust-and-abortion-causes-stir-127192/

I’ve made my views known about this in the past here but… I’m pro-life and so against this kind of analogy. Call abortion a genocide. But not a “holocaust.” Aside from the fact that the term doesn’t even make sense denotatively, it’s been seen by survivors and victims’ families as a highly offensive use of one tragedy to promote a specific cause. There are better ways to go about the pro-life mission. We shouldn’t and don’t need to co-opt others’ pain to expose the pain of aborted victims.

 

[Path_Finder]

Important to this story is how it struck her upon walking through the Holocaust Museum.

The thing is, is I don’t fault Duggar that much when this has been a comparison made a number of times,

There is a film called “180”, this is the premise of the film.

I have not seen this, I did however once witness a little advertising card for the film that were left around like flyers so I have heard of it.

ADL slams movie that compares Holocaust to abortion

Video shows images of Jews in mass graves and concentration camps, in attempt to convince U.S. viewers to support pro-life amendments in state legislature.
haaretz.com/jewish-world/adl-slams-movie-that-compares-holocaust-to-abortion-1.395124

I think there is a valid debate about using photos of the victims of the camp and mass graves in such a movie. To me, I would be very sensitive to this but without seeing the movie, I can not outright judge whether this was good or bad, if it is in bad taste. It appears so but I’d still ponder it a bit.

Another article; Renew America, 2007:

Did people know myth 2 below?

Are abortion and the Holocaust comparable?

Recently, Mike Huckabee got into trouble with the ADL for comparing abortion to the Holocaust. Who is right? Sadly, so many myths have arisen around the Holocaust, that it is difficult to see the merits, or lack thereof, in the comparison. Let’s clear away a few of the myths.

…

Myth #2: Hitler’s anti-Semitism was unique.

Fact: Every one of the great ideologies of Hitler’s time, liberal, socialist, conservative, or Nazi, was anti-Semitic. Hitler consciously modeled his destructive work on United States law. The Nuremburg laws which forbad Jews and Gentiles from marrying imitated Virginia law which forbad blacks marrying whites. Indeed, the Nuremburg laws were even formulated with the help of a Harvard law graduate. Similarly, the German mass sterilization of mental and physical defectives, Jews, and other “inferiors” modeled itself on U.S. state sterilization programs, upheld by the Supreme Court’s Buck vs. Bell (1927). Abortion, which had been illegal in Germany since 1870, was legalized, but only for defectives and inferior races. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, admired the Nuremburg laws for their improvement on U.S. law. Hitler simply followed U.S. practice and put scientific theory to work.

…

Myth #4: The Holocaust killed Jews almost exclusively.

Fact: While Jews were certainly foremost among the victims, and six million died in the various camps, so did five million Gentiles, including at least three million Catholics. Auschwitz killed Catholics for 26 consecutive months before the first Jews were shipped there. Some demographers point out that on a per capita basis, the Gypsies were killed at a greater rate than the Jews. Jehovah’s Witnesses and homosexuals were also marked for destruction. The Holocaust was modelled on the equally heinous destruction of Armenian Christians by secular and Muslim Turks twenty years earlier, a genocide which had been essentially ignored in Europe and the United States.

…

An objective study of the Holocaust and legal abortion demonstrates striking similarities. However, there are differences. For instance, the Nazis felt they had to hide the death camps to avoid general outrage; nearly all such camps were in Poland or Byelorussia, not Germany. In contrast, Americans debate but largely accept abortion clinics in our midst. In terms of pure body count, Hitler did not match Stalin, Stalin did not match Mao Tse Tung, and Mao has nothing on the U.S. Supreme Court. The differences are not all to our benefit.

renewamerica.com/columns/kellmeyer/071101

So, I think this just shows that this comparison has been around awhile.

 

[gracepoole]

Important to this story is how it struck her upon walking through the Holocaust Museum.

The thing is, is I don’t fault Duggar that much when this has been a comparison made a number of times,

There is a film called “180”, this is the premise of the film.

I have not seen this, I did however once witness a little advertising card for the film that were left around like flyers so I have heard of it.

But of course, the fact that this analogy has been used doesn’t mean that it’s a wise or appropriate analogy.

That film was produced by Ray Comfort. No thanks.

Another article; Renew America, 2007:

Did people know myth 2 below?

So, I think this just shows that this comparison has been around awhile.

Yes, there is quite a history to Hitler’s adoption of US views on eugenics. As for people other than Jews being murdered, this is true, as well. Of an estimated 11 million victims, 5 million were non-Jews (and most Catholics weren’t murdered because of their religious beliefs). And yet, Jews are the only group for which there was ordered an explicit death order. There was no shortage of Nazi victims. But the “final solution” applied only to Jews. This is one reason why Yad Vashem in Jerusalem identifies the Holocaust as referring to the Nazi genocide of Jews (using it as a proper noun). It does not dismiss that there was a Nazi genocide of other victim groups, too – it simply notes that because the Jewish situation was quite unique, it diminishes all victim groups to lump them together. The same can be said for abortion victims.

I understand why people want to use this kind of comparison. Everyone knows that the Holocaust was a horrific tragedy and so it becomes a kind of easy shorthand – a convenient go-to reference that all will comprehend. Except they don’t end up comprehending the Holocaust through its use. The further away we are historically from the Holocaust, the more it seems people are keen to use it for many purposes.

 

[Path_Finder]

But of course, the fact that this analogy has been used doesn’t mean that it’s a wise or appropriate analogy.

That film was produced by Ray Comfort. No thanks.

Yes, there is quite a history to Hitler’s adoption of US views on eugenics. As for people other than Jews being murdered, this is true, as well. Of an estimated 11 million victims, 5 million were non-Jews (and most Catholics weren’t murdered because of their religious beliefs). And yet, Jews are the only group for which there was ordered an explicit death order. There was no shortage of Nazi victims. But the “final solution” applied only to Jews. This is one reason why Yad Vashem in Jerusalem identifies the Holocaust as referring to the Nazi genocide of Jews (using it as a proper noun). It does not dismiss that there was a Nazi genocide of other victim groups, too – it simply notes that because the Jewish situation was quite unique, it diminishes all victim groups to lump them together. The same can be said for abortion victims.

I understand why people want to use this kind of comparison. Everyone knows that the Holocaust was a horrific tragedy and so it becomes a kind of easy shorthand – a convenient go-to reference that all will comprehend. Except they don’t end up comprehending the Holocaust through its use. The further away we are historically from the Holocaust, the more it seems people are keen to use it for many purposes.

There have been other “genocides” if we must be so proper, against the Armenians, the Holodomor against the Ukrainian people, what happened in Rwanda. Yet, we always hear about the Holocaust, perhaps if we have it so often repeated into our culture and “Never Forget”, you are going to have things happen like this.

And as for Hitler’s “Final Solution”, when he could have he would have done it to the Slavs as well and as it is, many died against Hitler and that just doesn’t mean the Concentration Camp, that means in Ukraine, Russia, Poland, Serbia and other lands, so that really pushes the millions numbers up.

That’s somewhat in bad taste to minimize the deaths of others killed, in labor, the Germans had some sort of underground lab to make weapons, captives had to dig, they wouldn’t give them shovels that could be used as weapons so they lived inside the earth, never seeing the sun.

 

[SuperLuigi]

christianpost.com/news/jessa-duggar-instagram-post-equating-holocaust-and-abortion-causes-stir-127192/

I’ve made my views known about this in the past here but… I’m pro-life and so against this kind of analogy. Call abortion a genocide. But not a “holocaust.” Aside from the fact that the term doesn’t even make sense denotatively, it’s been seen by survivors and victims’ families as a highly offensive use of one tragedy to promote a specific cause. There are better ways to go about the pro-life mission. We shouldn’t and don’t need to co-opt others’ pain to expose the pain of aborted victims.

The problem is this plays into progressive hands because they love to distract and derail the subject.

 

[christus_vincit]

Both the Holocaust and abortion demonstrate the depravity of modern society. Both demonstrate the slaughter of innocents on a massive scale. What offense could be taken when a comparison is drawn? Are not all human lives of equal worth? What makes the taking of one innocent life any more or less tragic than that of another?

 

[Path_Finder]

This makes a good parallel,

Anti-jihad transit ad pulled after request from James Foley’s family

edition.cnn.com/2014/09/29/us/james-foley-transit-ad/index.html

Good the ads were pulled imho, this comes down to exploitation. Not exactly the same case as with Duggar.

 

[Estevao]

Uh the Holocaust was a genocide carried out by a secular state (as most genocides seem to have been), and in popular parlance it can be used as a synonym for it. The fact that it targeted Jews seems irrelevant here.

 

[Darryl1958]

Calling abortion the largest genocide that has ever existed, larger in sheer numbers than the Amernian, the Nazi, the Maoist, the Cambodian, and the Rwandan genocides together-a million of year since 1973 in America alone- would be considered no less offensive and controversial to people who deem the unborn of having no inherent value.

The racist and classist dimensions of the abortion movement are well established too. Nancy Pelosi may well not see her own progeny as not lacking in instrumental worth, but the children of poor minorities are seen to be a liability, taxing on the resources of the government, and therefore costing more than they produce. That is how free birth control is seen by her as being a great benefit to society. Like the final solution of abortion, the goal is to eliminate the unwanted children who are a net burden on the system.

I am pretty sure this kind of talk though would be no less a stir, no less a war on womyn, than stating that abortion is a holocaust.

 

[Hobbes42]

It’s an apt comparison.

 

[jeannetherese]

the linked article quotes Duggar’s post: “The belief that some human beings are ‘not fit to live,’” she continued. “So they’re murdered. Slaughtered. Kids with Down syndrome or other disabilities. The sickly. The elderly. The sanctity of human life varies not in sickness or health, poverty or wealth, elderly or pre-born, little or lots of melanin [making you darker or lighter skinned], or any other factor.”
“May we never sit idly by and allow such an atrocity to happen again,” she wrote. “Not this generation. We must be a voice for those who cannot speak up for themselves. Because EVERY LIFE IS PRECIOUS. #ProLife,” she concluded.

She points to the notion espoused in both cases that some classes of human beings have been deemed “not fit to live”. It does seem to apply.

 

[Path_Finder]

The reason Holocaust is different in this case is because I believe it would be the belief the Holocaust, the Shoah, is unique to the Jewish people versus a general term like genocide.

As for it being a synonym for genocide, maybe you can argue it both ways though the way I’ve understood it, it’s a bit, shall we say, proprietary to the Jewish people; that said.

hol·o·caust (hl-kôst, hl-)
n.

1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.

a. Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: “Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe” (Emanuel Litvinoff).
b. A massive slaughter: “an important document in the so-far sketchy annals of the Cambodian holocaust” (Rod Nordland).
3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames.

thefreedictionary.com/holocaust

Hardly would a definition in a dictionary define this topic in real terms though for me.

Though, all that said, I maintain my points on Jesse Duggar.

She did no wrong.

This point has been made before.

It is frequently in our culture. If we hear the words “Never Again” to refer to the Holocaust, then what are we doing correcting someone about saying this??

 

[Path_Finder]

To me, this serves as a good analogy,

** James Foley image removed from controversial New York ad campaign **

latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-islam-ads-james-foley-20140929-story.html

A photo of an American journalist beheaded by Islamic State militants will be removed from an ad campaign in New York that some have castigated as anti-Islam.

Sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, the ad shows a picture of journalist James Foley kneeling before a militant prior to his execution. Part of a $100,000, month-long campaign that began Monday on Metropolitan Transportation Authority buses and inside subway stations, the ad asserts that “It’s not Islamophobia. It’s Islamorealism,” suggesting the religion’s adherents are extremists.

Now, James Foley’s family got upset at this and that is understandable. Still, reading the article, I’m not sure if their reasons are the best.

The same excuse, valid or not, seems to be used in both cases, the family in the Foley Case, the survivors of Holocaust victims in cases as with Duggars.

However, Duggars case is different in that no photo is being used.

The two stories seem slightly similar.

 

[Exiled_Child]

I think that what it boils down to is there are Jewish groups who fervently desire to own the term “holocaust.” My belief is that this is absurd, seeing as how the word is ancient. It is a word that has been used to describe mass murder and genocide since long before Hitler rose to power, and if anything Jewish historians are at fault for appropriating the term. If a word in common usage can be copyrighted by one specific ethnicity, then why doesn’t “holocaust” belong to the Armenians? After all, their holocaust happened prior to WWII and the term “holocaust” was widely used at the time to describe what happened. Winston Churchill famously used the word to describe those events long before anyone ever heard the word Nazi. Abe Foxman, the mentally ill racist leader of the ADL, was himself a holocaust denier until very, very recently, so it’s clear that this entire issue is just political nonsense. Turks won’t use the word holocaust because it makes them look bad. Likewise, we’re not about to see some American senator stand on the floor of the senate and refer to the genocide of Native Americans as a holocaust. Nonetheless, everyone knows that it was, in fact, a holocaust. There is absolutely no reason why the abortion industry couldn’t accurately be described as a holocaust. If we’re going to do more than pay empty lip service to the idea of equality, then how can we say one group’s death and suffering is more valid than another groups?

 

[gnjsdad]

I think that what it boils down to is there are Jewish groups who fervently desire to own the term “holocaust.” My belief is that this is absurd, seeing as how the word is ancient. It is a word that has been used to describe mass murder and genocide since long before Hitler rose to power, and if anything Jewish historians are at fault for appropriating the term. If a word in common usage can be copyrighted by one specific ethnicity, then why doesn’t “holocaust” belong to the Armenians? After all, their holocaust happened prior to WWII and the term “holocaust” was widely used at the time to describe what happened. Winston Churchill famously used the word to describe those events long before anyone ever heard the word Nazi. Abe Foxman, the mentally ill racist leader of the ADL, was himself a holocaust denier until very, very recently, so it’s clear that this entire issue is just political nonsense. Turks won’t use the word holocaust because it makes them look bad. Likewise, we’re not about to see some American senator stand on the floor of the senate and refer to the genocide of Native Americans as a holocaust. Nonetheless, everyone knows that it was, in fact, a holocaust. There is absolutely no reason why the abortion industry couldn’t accurately be described as a holocaust. If we’re going to do more than pay empty lip service to the idea of equality, then how can we say one group’s death and suffering is more valid than another groups?

When you consider that the ADL is in the forefront of groups promoting abortion, their objections to others using the word “holocaust” to describe abortion should only be regarded as hypocritical tripe.

 

[gracepoole]

I think that what it boils down to is there are Jewish groups who fervently desire to own the term “holocaust.” My belief is that this is absurd, seeing as how the word is ancient. It is a word that has been used to describe mass murder and genocide since long before Hitler rose to power, and if anything Jewish historians are at fault for appropriating the term. If a word in common usage can be copyrighted by one specific ethnicity, then why doesn’t “holocaust” belong to the Armenians? After all, their holocaust happened prior to WWII and the term “holocaust” was widely used at the time to describe what happened. Winston Churchill famously used the word to describe those events long before anyone ever heard the word Nazi. Abe Foxman, the mentally ill racist leader of the ADL, was himself a holocaust denier until very, very recently, so it’s clear that this entire issue is just political nonsense. Turks won’t use the word holocaust because it makes them look bad. Likewise, we’re not about to see some American senator stand on the floor of the senate and refer to the genocide of Native Americans as a holocaust. Nonetheless, everyone knows that it was, in fact, a holocaust. There is absolutely no reason why the abortion industry couldn’t accurately be described as a holocaust. If we’re going to do more than pay empty lip service to the idea of equality, then how can we say one group’s death and suffering is more valid than another groups?

The word “holocaust” is *not *used to describe the Armenian genocide, nor the Holodomor. It’s not used to describe any other genocide except by those who use it to describe abortion. That says something, I think. Its definition is ancient but it refers to a sacrificial death by fire. First, there’s no fire involved in abortion (which is why in my OP I said it makes no sense denotatively). Second, abortion is not sacrificial. Neither was the Holocaust (capital H), which is why the term Shoah is often used by Jews instead. The word itself (aside from its connotations) is not a reasonable term to describe what happens to abortion victims. As for one group “owning” the term (which you deem “absurd”), I would think that what victims and survivors went through gives them some leeway. I’m not trying to get fractious here but using the descriptor “absurd” to describe the reactions of people who, without exception, were marked for death seems…unflattering to all here.

Not long ago, I was at a Holocaust-themed conference with a woman who was the director of her local JCC. She’d been asked by the local bishop to craft remarks for him to use at the unveiling of a Holocaust memorial in the community. She did so and then attended the ceremony. She was shocked to find that the bishop not only disregarded her comments entirely (which of course was his right) but that he also spun the entire event into an “abortion holocaust” theme. In attendance were aging survivors of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Majdanek. Families of those who died in the Holocaust were present. All were horrified. Again, I’m pro-life and I definitely don’t disparage the movement. I’m simply noting that this comparison is in bad taste. That alone should put people off of it. It should make people wonder whether they’re exhibiting Christian charity when using such an analogy.

 

[gracepoole]

When you consider that the ADL is in the forefront of groups promoting abortion, their objections to others using the word “holocaust” to describe abortion should only be regarded as hypocritical tripe.

To what are you referring? The ADL’s mission is to decry modern antisemitism.

 

[abucs]

As for people other than Jews being murdered, this is true, as well. Of an estimated 11 million victims, 5 million were non-Jews (and most Catholics weren’t murdered because of their religious beliefs). And yet, Jews are the only group for which there was ordered an explicit death order.

Hello Gracepoole.

I don’t think Jews were killed for their religious views either. They were killed for their non Aryan genes. Even if the family had converted to Christianity generations before, they were targeted for ‘state removal’ just the same.

In a similar way the handicapped were removed for ‘bad genes’ and the Nazis developed plans to exterminate the Poles etc because of their ‘Slav genes’. They even sent Nazi government workers into Polish schools to identify children with Aryan rather than Slav genes and then those children were removed by government force back to Germany. They also set up government breeding facilities to breed future Aryans from SS officer stock with suitably identified Aryan females. The German Socialist government also developed different policies regarding abortion dependent of genes. Abortion was illegal for Aryans and encouraged for non Aryans, including Slavs.

In the mantra ‘Survival of the fittest’ the scientific consensus in Germany at that time was that it meant Aryan genetics. Both Judaism and it’s creation - Christianity, were considered weak and would die off naturally.

 

[Darryl1958]

It’s an apt comparison.

It is a people-to-people comparison.

PETA came up with a campaign against KFC called Holocaust on a plate.

That is a people-chicken comparison, and we all should be offended to the memory of Holocaust victims being subjected to that.

 

[gnjsdad]

To what are you referring? The ADL’s mission is to decry modern antisemitism.

It is also to make sure as many abortions as possible take place.

ADL Welcomes Supreme Court Decision Against Nebraska Abortion Law

ADL: Supreme Court Deals “Setback” to Women’s Access to Reproductive Health Services in Massachusetts

ADL to Supreme Court: Buffer Zones Protect Public Safety

These are just a few of the ADL’s press releases issued in support of “reproductive rights” (IOW, abortion).

When they object to the abortion holocaust, that must be kept in mind.